"The problem here is that these efforts by the United States to change other countries' governments often lead to catastrophe."
The Trump administration intensified its
interference in politically-fractured Venezuela on Monday by announcing the
seizure of billions of dollars in assets connected to the nation's state-owned
oil company, a move critics decried as part of a "dangerous" U.S.
policy to help opposition forces overthrow elected
president Nicolás Maduro.
National Security Adviser John Bolton and
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the
sanctions imposed via executive order against
Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA)—a primary source of income and foreign
currency for the country—at a White House press briefing on
Monday afternoon. They were joined by Larry Kudlow, director of the National
Economic Council.
"Today's measure total's
$7 billion in assets blocked today. Plus, over $11 billion in lost export
proceeds over the next year."
Mnuchin
vowed the United States "will continue to use all of our diplomatic and
economic tools" to back Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself Venezuela's
"interim president." The secretary made clear that "the path to
sanctions relief for PdVSA is through the expeditious transfer of control to
the interim president or a subsequent, democratically-elected government."
Mnuchin
said PDVSA has long been a vehicle for embezzlement and corruption by officials
and businessmen. The sanctions will prevent the nation's oil wealth from being
diverted to Maduro and will only be lifted when his regime hands control of
PDVSA to a successor government, he added.
[...]
Under
the sanctions, U.S. companies can continue to purchase Venezuelan oil, but the
payments must be held in an account that cannot be accessed by the Maduro
regime.
"If
the people in Venezuela want to continue to sell us oil, as long as that money
goes into blocked accounts, we'll continue to take it," Mnuchin said.
"Otherwise we will not be buying it."
In addition to tightening economic
restrictions on the Maduro government as a way to bolster the position of
Guaidó, Bolton also issued a fresh threat of military action by telling
reporters in the White House briefing room that Trump "has made it clear
that all options are on the table" when it comes to next possible steps.
"This is very dangerous,"
world-renowned economics professor and senior U.N. advisor Jeffrey D. Sachs
warned on CNN Monday afternoon. He expressed concern that the
administration's actions could cause immense suffering among the Venezuelan
people, similar to the consequences endured by citizens of other countries
subjected to U.S. interventions.
"The problem here is that these
efforts by the United States to change other countries' governments often lead
to catastrophe," Sachs noted, "as has happened all through the Middle
East in recent years."
"Very often Washington says,
'Somebody must go,'" he continued. "And this is how our foreign
policy often works—it's very arrogant [to say] who should rule in another
country. By the way, Maduro is not a decent, pleasant man—but on the other
hand, for Washington to just announce that a self-declared politician is the
president, is kind of an American regime change tradition."
Keeping with that tradition, a Wall
Street Journal report published last week revealed that
Guaidó's coup attempt has been highly coordinated with Trump administration
officials and Republican lawmakers. A handful of other nations including Israel
and Brazil are also backing Guaidó, and in a speech before the U.N. Security
Council on Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged others to follow
suit.
Experts and
a few progressive members of Congress,
meanwhile, have acknowledged the economic and political crises in Venezuela but
also demanded that the Trump administration refrain from intervening through
military action or sanctions.
"Instead of a U.S.-led regime change,
the two sides need to share power temporarily, until new elections, perhaps in
2021. It seems inconceivable, yet history shows this can be done,"
Sachs charged in
a column for CNN on Sunday, citing Poland's transition to
democracy in 1989 as an example. As he outlined:
Such
a compromise would have Maduro remain as president, the military in effect hold
the Ministries of Defense and Interior, and the opposition forces take over the
civilian ministries, and the Central Bank of Venezuela. Guaidó, or some other
leader in the opposition camp, would serve in effect as a prime minister,
leading the civilian cabinet, and guiding Venezuela's economic policies.
Elections would be agreed upon for 2021 or 2022, perhaps under a
semi-parliamentary system by that time.
"The U.S. instead appears to be
aiming for regime change and tightening sanctions to bring Maduro to his
knees," Sachs concluded. "Such an outcome is perhaps feasible, though
it would leave a very bitter legacy. More likely, though, it would occasion
further violence and an escalation of the economic crisis, possibly leading to
war."
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Here's How Venezuela Can Achieve a Peaceful
Resolution to the Crisis
Monday, January 28, 2019
Instead of a US-led regime change, the two
sides need to share power temporarily, until new elections, perhaps in 2021
These US interventions, both direct and
indirect, have resulted in dozens of regime changes over
the course of more than a century. (Photo: Edilzon Gamez/Getty Images)
Events in Venezuela may be heading toward
a catastrophic conflict. Venezuelan society is deeply divided between President
Nicolas Maduro and his supporters, backed by the military, versus an opposition
led by self-declared president, Juan Guaido,
leader of the National Assembly.
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal,
which cited a senior administration official, the US promised it would back
Guaido as part of a secret plan developed over several weeks. The US, along
with Canada and several Latin American governments, quickly recognized Guaido
as president, while China and Russia are backing Maduro. One spark could set
off a civil war.
Neither side appears willing to go down
without a fight and new elections in these circumstances would be fraught with
peril. If Venezuela had a parliamentary system, new elections might produce a
broad coalition among several small parties. Unfortunately, with Venezuela's
presidential system, an election now, if somehow organized, would amplify both
the stark polarization between Maduro and the opposition -- and the threat of
civil war.
The US' move to recognize Guaido is
provocative. The problem is that the US has a track record of bullying Latin
America and staging interventions in
the region. These US interventions, both direct and indirect, have resulted in
dozens of regime changes over
the course of more than a century.
Even if Guaido proves successful in his
bid for power, millions in Latin America and around the world will view
Maduro's overthrow as the latest case of US-led regime change.
The
appointment of neoconservative Elliott Abrams on
Friday as President Trump's new special envoy for Venezuela just two days after
Guaido declared himself the new leader will only fuel the charges. Abrams
famously advocated for the armed support of Nicaraguan Contras and pleaded
guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about
secret efforts to arm the rebel forces -- before he received a presidential
pardon. Even if Guaido proves successful in gaining power, the view that the US
once again helped to orchestrate regime change will embitter Venezuela and the
region for years to come.
Instead of a US-led regime change, the two
sides need to share power temporarily, until new elections, perhaps in 2021. It
seems inconceivable, yet history shows this can be done. Poland's successful
transition to democracy in 1989 provides a pertinent example. In early 1989,
Poland was on the brink of catastrophe, with martial law, a hugely unpopular
Communist government, a collapsed economy and an incipient hyperinflation.
n Poland's case, the rapid transformation
started with Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost, or
restructuring and openness. The Communist regime and the Solidarity opposition
brokered a Round Table Agreement in 1989, which led to a partially
free election for the Polish parliament later that
year, which set the country on a path of deep economic reform.
While
Solidarity won a significant victory with
a majority in the upper chamber of parliament, the communists retained control
of the lower chamber. The Solidarity movement brilliantly found a way to
peacefully break the deadlock and proposed the solution known as "Your
President, Our Prime Minister." The Communists would retain the presidency
and the "power ministries" of interior and defense, while one of the
Solidarity leaders became prime minister with the power to appoint his cabinet.
This
compromise was put into practice and it held fast under the guidance and
support of Gorbachev, the US, Europe and Pope John Paul II. The Communists did
not meddle in economic management. Indeed, the new Polish government launched
the most ambitious reform in modern history, designed to return Poland to the
mainstream of the European economy. The reforms worked.
Poland's economic collapse was reversed and economic growth resumed, setting it
on course for European Union membership.
Violence was completely avoided. In 1990,
Wojciech Jaruzelski, the last Communist leader of Poland, stepped down and
Poland elected Lech Walesa as president. Of course by then, the international
scene had changed dramatically, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.
There is of course no precise analogue
between Poland in 1989 and Venezuela today, but the comparison is apt. Venezuela,
like Poland, needs a compromise that avoids a violent confrontation between the
government and the opposition, a military coup, a civil war or, even more
disastrously, a proxy war pitting US-backed contingents against Russian-backed
contingents. Such a grim scenario might seem fanciful, yet Syria has been blown
apart by such a proxy war during the past eight years.
And like Poland, Venezuela has suffered an
economic collapse. This is the sad, predictable result of Venezuela's failed
policies under Maduro, also stoked by US economic sanctions that have further
squeezed Venezuela's oil production and helped to push the country into
vertiginous collapse.
Maduro
won re-election in 2018 with
most of the opposition boycotting the election. Hyperinflation has now reached
a rate of 1 million percent per year, with signs of acceleration. Venezuela has
defaulted on its external obligations, including enormous sums owed to China
and Russia, which will no doubt try to protect their claims.
In short, all sides have an urgent reason
for compromise. The Venezuelan military aims to protect its privileged standing
within the Chavez-Maduro system, yet it would like to end the economic
catastrophe and avoid mass bloodshed. Maduro aims to hold power, yet is clearly
incapable of solving Venezuela's economic crisis. He has lost the confidence of
the overwhelming majority of the population. Yet for now he holds the backing
of the military.
The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela is
also very serious, with hunger, dire shortages of medicines, and massive
refugee movements out of the country. These grim realities could propel a
Polish-style compromise solution. Such a compromise would have Maduro remain as
president, the military in effect hold the Ministries of Defense and Interior,
and the opposition forces take over the civilian ministries and the Central
Bank of Venezuela. Guaido, or some other leader in the opposition camp, would
serve in effect as a prime minister, leading the civilian cabinet, and guiding
Venezuela's economic policies. Elections would be agreed upon for 2021 or 2022,
perhaps under a semi-parliamentary system by that time.
The major outside powers, notably the US,
China and Russia, and the neighboring countries, would agree to and oversee the
end of economic sanctions and the regularization of economic relations with the
international institutions and the formulation of an emergency stabilization program.
All creditor nations would be ready to take urgent steps, such as debt
restructuring, needed to end the catastrophic hyperinflation. The UN Security
Council would support these measures.
We are not currently on this path. The US
instead appears to be aiming for regime change and tightening sanctions to
bring Maduro to his knees. Such an outcome is perhaps feasible, though it would
leave a very bitter legacy. More likely, though, it would occasion further
violence and an escalation of the economic crisis, possibly leading to war.
This is the urgent time for compromise,
not for a winner-take-all showdown.
© 2019 CNN
Because of people like you, another world
is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them
together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We
don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world
to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that
way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size
matters—please donate.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is
the Director of The
Earth Institute, Professor of Sustainable Development,
and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is
Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the
Millennium Development Goals, having held the same position under former UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development
Solutions Network. He is co-founder and Chief Strategist of Millennium Promise
Alliance, and is director of the Millennium Villages Project. A recent survey
by The Economist Magazine ranked Professor Sachs as among the world’s three
most influential living economists of the past decade. Sachs is the author,
most recently, of “The Age of Sustainable Development,"2015 with Ban Ki-moon.
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center,
325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email:
mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to
"The master class has always declared the wars; the
subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to
gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and
everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment