The first democratically elected president of Venezuela was Rómulo Betancourt, prior to that the country was ruled by dictators. Betancourt was a communist-turned-social democrat. In fact, while he was in exile, he founded the Communist Party in Costa Rica and helped found the Communist Party in Colombia as well.
You heard me right. The people elected him based on his promises of creating a socialist utopia.
Not surprisingly, as president, he started destroying the economic institutions Venezuela had by implementing price controls, rent controls, and other regulations they hadn’t had before. On top of that, he and his allies created a new constitution that was hostile to private property.
In spite of this — or perhaps because of it — Betancourt is almost universally revered in Venezuela as “the father of our democracy.” This remains true even today as Venezuela collapses.
Of course, compared to today, Venezuela had far greater economic freedom under Betancourt than it does in today’s Venezuela.
But, all of the presidents who came after Betancourt took similar positions and continued to chip away at economic freedom.
Over time, the destruction of economic freedom led to more and more impoverishment and crisis. This in turn set the stage for the rise of a political outsider with a populist message. This, of course, was Hugo Chávez.
He was elected in 1998 and promised to replace moderate socialism with more radical socialism.
He was able to pass through an even more anti-private-property constitution.
Since Chávez’s death in 2013, the attacks on private property have continued, and Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, has turned to outright authoritarian socialism.
So, what are the results of socialism in Venezuela? Hyperinflation, people eating garbage, schools that do not teach, hospitals that do not heal, long and humiliating lines to buy flour, bread, and basic medicines and the militarization of practically every aspect of life.
The cost of living has skyrocketed in recent years.
In March 2007, the largest denomination of paper money in Venezuela was the 100 bolivar bill. With it, you could buy 28 US dollars, 288 eggs, or 56 kilograms of rice. Today, you can buy .01 dollars, 0.2 eggs, and 0.08 kilograms of rice. You now need five 100-bolivar bills ($2800) to buy just one egg.
So, socialism is the cause of the Venezuelan misery. Venezuelans are starving, eating garbage, losing weight. Children are malnourished. Anyone in Venezuela would be happy to eat out of America’s trashcans. It would be considered a gourmet meal.
Yet Maduro still commands more than enough state resources to avoid a coup. For years, the president has purchased the loyalty of Venezuela’s armed forces by giving the military loans and control over state-run enterprises.
The Ministry of Defense is now in charge of importing, producing, selling and distributing all food in Venezuela in a country where people are starving.
So why have things escalated?
In May 2018, Maduro was re-elected to a second term in elections which have widely been dismissed as rigged. He was sworn in on 10 January.
At the prospect of another six years of Maduro government and with the economy in freefall, the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, declared himself interim president on 23 January.
Mr Guaidó argues that Mr Maduro is a “usurper” and that the presidency is therefore vacant, in which case the constitution calls for the head of the National Assembly to step in.
The US and more than 50 other countries have recognised Mr Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela but Maduro’s key allies, Russia and China, have stuck by the latter.
The two sides have been locked in a stand-off since January with Guaidó trying to sway the military, a key player in the country, to switch its allegiance.
On 30 April, he called on the security forces to join him in the “final phase” of the removal from power of Maduro, a move the government said was “an attempted coup”.
A government like Maduro’s might not last long in, say, France, because neighboring countries and the European Union would exert sufficient diplomatic, political and economic pressure to punish the rogue regime for its actions.
International pressure can have some positive effect under two conditions.
First, the target country must be heavily dependent on international economic exchange, without other strong allies.
Second, the sanctions must be multilateral.
Neither condition is true of Venezuela.
The Organization of American States has tried for two years to expel Venezuela because it is no longer a democracy. But member countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua – all of which have strongman leaders allied with Maduro – oppose the initiative.
In any case, its Latin American neighbors are not Venezuela’s main international financial partners. China and Russia are largely keeping Maduro’s bankrupt regime afloat by buying oil concessions and extending the repayment period on loans.
Therein lies the greatest problem we face in trying to help the Venezuelan people.
Sending American troops in to aid in overthrowing the Maduro regime could create a proxy war pitting the US against China and Russia.
I know what you are thinking. We have already been in that situation many times throughout our history.
The big difference here is that this war would be in our own hemisphere, and would require a completely different set of alliances than those we counted on in previous conflicts.
Could we count on our European allies to come to our aid in such a conflict? I doubt it.
China and Russia both hold seats on the UN Security Council with veto power.
The Middle East is deep in turmoil and I doubt our allies there could spare any resources to help us, not to mention the political ramifications of them joining us in such an effort.
So who does that leave?
Russia and China, have warned the US not to intervene in support of the opposition leader Guaidó’s attempt to lead the country.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin spoke by telephone with Maduro and offered him strong support in a political crisis he said had been “provoked from abroad”, a Kremlin statement said.
“Destructive interference from abroad blatantly violates basic norms of international law,” Putin was quoted as saying.
The Kremlin press release did not mention the US by name but matched earlier statements by other senior Russian officials targeted at Washington.
Russia’s prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, described the US support for Guaidó as a “quasi-coup” and accused the US of hypocrisy, asking how Americans would react if the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, declared herself president.
Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said a US military intervention in Venezuela would be catastrophic.
Russia is an important source of financial support to the Venezuelan government, providing billions of dollars in loans, some as pre-payment for future deliveries of oil.
Last month Russia dispatched two nuclear-capable Tu-160 bombers to the country in a further show of support.
Russia has said it is ready to facilitate talks among political forces in Venezuela. “We will stand, if you’d like, together with this country in defense of sovereignty, in defense of the inadmissibility of encroaching on the principle of nonintervention in internal affairs,” Ryabkov said.
Franz Klintsevich, a Russian senator and retired colonel, said Moscow could increase its military cooperation with Venezuela if Maduro, who he said was the legitimately elected president, was ousted.
Other Russian officials criticized US actions. “The US is trying to carry out an operation to organize the next ‘colour revolution’ in Venezuela,” said Andrei Klimov, the deputy chair of the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of parliament, using a term for the popular uprisings that unseated leaders in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
China said it supports the Venezuelan government’s efforts in preserving the country’s sovereignty, independence and stability.
“I want to emphasize that outside sanctions or interference usually make the situation more complicated and are not helpful to resolving the actual problems,” a foreign affairs spokeswoman said.
Venezuela has been one of Beijing’s closest allies in Latin America, and the largest recipient of Chinese financing, taking as much as $38 billion in loans by 2017.
China is also Venezuela’s largest creditor, prompting concerns that as Venezuela’s economy collapses, state assets could fall into Chinese hands.
It is in Beijing’s interest to support Maduro, given that a new government could refuse to honor Venezuela’s debt obligations to China.
Maduro met China’s president, Xi Jinping, last year and toured Mao Zedong’s mausoleum in Beijing, and the countries agreed on an additional $3.8 billion in loans and more than 20 bilateral agreements.
Turkey’s president, Recep Erdoğan, phoned Maduro to offer his support, later telling a press conference he was shocked that the US had backed Guaidó.
“You will respect the results of elections. Trump’s remarks shocked me, as someone who believes in democracy,” he said. “I called Maduro on the way back from Russia. I told [him] very clearly: ‘Never allow anti-democratic developments. Stand tall,’” he said.
Turkey’s foreign minister issued a warning about Guaidó’s declaration. “There is an elected president and another person declares himself president, and some countries recognize this. This may cause chaos,we are against the isolation of countries. I hope the situation will be solved peacefully.”
Mexico, part of the 14-member Lima Group, departed from the regional bloc’s call for democratic transition and said it would stick to its “constitutional principles of non-intervention”.
It joined Uruguay, the only other prominent Latin American country still recognizing Maduro, in calling for additional talks between the government and opposition to find a peaceful solution. Previous talks brokered by the Vatican on the Venezuelan situation broke down.
Mexico had previously criticized Venezuela but its new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has returned the country to its traditional foreign policy of not weighing in on the internal affairs of other countries and expecting the same silence in return.
Iran denounced events in Venezuela, saying the opposition’s claim there that it held the presidency was a “coup” and an attempt to take power unlawfully.
The foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi said: “Islamic Republic of Iran supports the government and people of Venezuela against any sort of foreign intervention and any illegitimate and illegal action such as attempt to make a coup d’état.”
Cuba expressed its support for Maduro, with the state newspaper Granma saying that by recognizing Guaidó as interim president, Donald Trump was “directing a coup d’état”.
Cuba is hugely dependent on Venezuelan petroleum paid for with doctors.
The UK broke European ranks on Thursday and sided with the US. “This regime has done untold damage to the people of Venezuela, 10% of the population have left Venezuela such is the misery they are suffering,” the foreign secretary Jeremy Huny said in a statement issued in Washington.
“So the United Kingdom believes Juan Guaidó is the right person to take Venezuela forward. We are supporting the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina to make that happen.”
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said talks in Venezuela were needed to avoid the political crisis spiraling out of control.
“What we hope is that dialogue can be possible, and that we avoid an escalation that would lead to the kind of conflict that would be a disaster for the people of Venezuela and for the region,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
“Sovereign governments have the possibility to decide whatever they want. What we are worried about with the situation in Venezuela is the suffering of the people of Venezuela.”
Now folks, this is all well and good, but we can indeed make our own argument that we have explained our position in the Americas in the past. I am referring to The Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine , was the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy spoken by President James Monroe in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823.
In that address, Monroe stated that, “Any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States”.
Trust me, you will hear the Monroe Doctrine bantered about on the national news constantly in the next few weeks.
I find this amusing, since the Monroe Doctrine is not a law. It is merely a statement a President made to Congress 196 years ago.
So there you have it folks.
Hopefully you can see just how grave the situation is surrounding the conflict in Venezuela.
It is much larger than who will rule Venezuela, and it could very easily escalate into an international conflict that could trigger a world war.
You say that will never happen?
I take you back to Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 when a Serbian nationalist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, triggering WWI.
Within two months, Austria-Hungary and Germany (the Central Powers) were at war with Russia, France, Great Britain, and Italy (the Allied Powers).
By the end of the conflict, 32 countries worldwide were involved.
20 million people had been killed (including 113,000 U.S. soldiers) and 20 million people wounded.
So folks, let me ask you. Should we stand idly by and watch China and Russia secure a foothold in the America’s, or should we stand firm and use our military to secure democracy within our hemisphere?
Skip to content
