Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 316

Thread: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

  1. #261
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,229

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    I highly recommend The London Review of Books, the most successful literary publication in Europe. London Review of Books: London Review of Books: all hail this splendid magazine that reveres the written. Observer editorial

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    yes, it’s not the fault of the Bolivarians, it’s the fault of dangerous foreign actors hostile to la revolucíon
    You know it's not that simple.Not everything in life or politics is black and white.From 1980 onwards, Venezuelan corruption has remained high. And although it's not that simple, in some aspects, the answer is yes.
    History teaches us... Sovereignty and Latin America 8 February 2019 ( full article)
    What’s at Stake in Venezuela? Greg Grandin on sovereignty and Latin America
    Excerpts,

    (...) 4. Throughout the 19th century, the ideological commitment to sovereignty – later also understood as non-intervention – deepened, for three reasons. First, the new Spanish nations, along with Portuguese Brazil, had many boundary conflicts over resources and land. But the region’s diplomats tended to appeal to the ideal of territorial sovereignty to settle those fights, thus confirming their commitment to the ideal. The second had to do with Latin American efforts, by the Argentine jurist Carlos Calvo and others, to ward off Europe’s attempts to collect debt by force and, occasionally, as in Mexico in the 1860s, sending in troops. The third was the shadow of a territorially aggrandising United States, speeding across North America like a whirligig, into Mexico and then the Caribbean, followed by market expansion and gunboat intervention deeper into South America.

    5. By the beginning of the 20th century, Latin America – its jurists, diplomats, politicians and intellectuals – had codified its commitment to sovereignty in an expansive body of legal theorising they called American International Law. Its theorists worked closely with US and European jurists, many of them associated with the international peace movement, helping to establish such legal milestones as the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

    6. Some of these theorists, including Mexico’s revolutionary jurist and politicians, were more critical of the US. Others, such as Chile’s Alejandro Alvarez, held to a blind Hegelian faith that the unilateral militarism of the United States would help create a world community of law that would contain and socialise the unilateral militarism of the United States.

    7. The United States held, in contrast, to an aterritorial understanding of sovereignty. As the nation flew west, first indigenous peoples, and then Mexicans, were often cast as ‘children’, supposedly incapable of forming the rational political society that justified self-government. After the frontier closed, Latin American nations became the new irresponsibles. Woodrow Wilson’s Latin American experts, as they prepared for the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, ranked countries ‘as mature, immature or criminal’ and came up with a series of tests ‘to determine whether they are yet ready to be allowed to conduct their own affairs in a world to be governed by reason’. ‘How many Cubas are there?’ the document asked: that is, how many countries were made up of leaders and populations who had no right to political sovereignty because they couldn’t exercise sovereignty over themselves and their emotions?

    8. Such questions are based on the premise that only a morally responsible nation could be sovereign. The definition of morality changed according to circumstance: either it meant the ability to exercise effective control over a population; or it meant democratic or procedural legitimacy. Which standard Washington used – control or legitimacy – depended on which was best able to protect foreign private property. In all cases, the United States reserved the right, often invoking its own sense of exceptionalism, to be the judge.

    9. US envoys occasionally sided with Latin American diplomats in their efforts to keep Europeans at bay. But they always rejected the idea of American International Law, especially if it meant giving up the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations to protect their own interests. ‘There can no more be an American international law,’ the US envoy said at the first Pan-American Conference in 1889, ‘than there can be an English, a German or a Prussian international law.’ There was only ‘international law’, whose ‘old and settled meaning’ was defined ‘long before any of the now established American nations had an independent existence’.

    10. In other words, American exceptionalism was good to justify US intervention, but not good when deployed, by other kinds of Americans, to contain interventionism.

    11. In the first decades of the 20th century, with the US at the height of its gunboat diplomacy – waging counterinsurgencies in Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and sending troops into Mexico’s oil-rich city of Veracruz – Latin American diplomats made their strongest push to force it to accept the principle of non-intervention.

    12. It didn’t. In the run up to the Seventh Pan-American Conference, in December 1933 in Montevideo, Argentina’s foreign minister, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, invited the nations of the world to sign an Anti-War Treaty on Non-Aggression and Conciliation. Part of an effort to end the war between Bolivia and Paraguay, it crystallised many of the doctrines long advocated by Latin American jurists, in particular the absolute prohibition of ‘intervention either diplomatic or armed’ in the affairs of other nations. Saavedra Lamas had obtained the signatures of six other Latin American countries before the start of the conference.

    13. FDR had dispatched his secretary of state, Cordell Hull, to the summit with instructions not to offer Latin Americans anything more than a promise to build a few roads. Hull was a Tennessee Democrat who had fought in the War of 1898, and, as he wrote in his memoir, was proud to have intervened then, ending Spanish colonialism and bringing democracy to Cuba. Hull – who, according to his adviser Ernest Gruening, spoke a born and bred Tennessee gentry lisp, dropping g’s and wrestling with r’s – objected to the idea of Latin American sovereignty: ‘What am ah goin’ to do when chaos breaks out in one of those countries and armed bands go woamin’ awound, burnin’, pillagin’ and murdewin’ Amewicans?’ Gruening says Hull asked him. ‘How can I tell mah people that we cain’t intervene?’ ‘Mr Secretary,’ Gruening answered, ‘that usually happens after we have intervened.’

    14. Hull represented a nation in economic contraction, looking out at an increasingly hostile Asia and dangerous Europe. Finding it impossible to hold out, Hull ‘rose to the occasion magnificently’, an observer wrote, announcing that the United States would henceforth ‘shun and reject’ the ‘so-called right-of-conquest … The New Deal indeed would be an empty boast if it did not mean that.’ Latin American delegates broke out in ‘thunderous applause and cheers’.

    15. ‘Our era of “imperialism” nears its end,’ the New York Times announced of Hull’s pledge to give up the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations. ‘“Manifest Destiny” is giving way to the new policy of “equal dealing with all nations”.’ Roosevelt, ever the agile politician, seized the moment, confirming later in 1933 that the ‘definite policy of the United States from now on is one opposed to armed intervention’.

    16. Montevideo was Roosevelt’s first significant foreign policy success, marking a turn in the United States’ fortunes as an ascendant superpower. FDR withdrew marines from Haiti and gave the country back its national bank (seized by one of his interventionist predecessors). The US abrogated the Cuban constitution’s hated Platt Amendment, which had turned the island into a vassal state, and tolerated a degree of economic nationalism in Latin America, including Mexico’s expropriation of the holdings of Standard Oil.

    7. Hull’s extemporaneous agreement to Latin American demands that Washington recognise the absolute sovereignty of American nations is one of the most unambiguously successful foreign-policy initiatives the United States has ever undertaken. Improved relations with Latin America helped the US recover from the Great Depression. What became known as the Good Neighbour Policy also provided a blueprint for a revived globalism, establishing in the Western hemisphere the foundations of Washington’s postwar global diplomacy: an acceptance of national sovereignty; new multilateral institutions and agreements; the recognition of social rights, including the right of developing countries to regulate foreign investment and property; and a regional alliance and mutual defence system. Latin American nations made up the largest regional caucus in the UN – in its early years, before decolonisation greatly expanded the institution – backing, nearly unanimously, all the elements of Washington’s larger Cold War policy.

    18. Latin American theorists understood that there was a fundamental contradiction between their ideal of absolute national sovereignty and their vision of a just international order that could ensure social welfare and individual dignity. But they argued that the contradiction could be resolved through multilateral arbitration, in an international system that might ‘intervene’ in the name of a higher law when necessary but wouldn’t be corrupted by the self-interest of great powers.

    19. On a visit to Venezuela in 1950, George Kennan described the taxes that US oil companies paid to the government in Caracas as ‘a sort of ransom to the theory of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention which we had consented to adopt’.

    20. The United States intervened in Latin America throughout the Cold War, but it did so in a way that didn’t undercut the diplomatic principles of multilateralism. The CIA’s successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and its botched invasion of the Bay of Pigs in 1961 were covert violations of sovereignty, but did not entail a direct legal challenge to the ideal. In fact, they affirmed the principle – formally, at least – since Washington got the Organisation of American States’ approval to isolate Guatemala and Cuba diplomatically. The OAS also endorsed, with some dissent, Washington’s 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic. And when it balked at Ronald Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada, his ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, cited treaty obligations with the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to justify the intervention.

    21. The commitment to the ideal of national sovereignty deepened in the 1960s and early 1970s, with decolonisation, wars of national liberation, and revolutionary movements in Cuba, Chile and elsewhere.

    22. A Latin American understanding of sovereignty had worked its way out of the New World to serve as the legal and moral foundation of the United Nations and the guiding principle of 20th-century decolonising nations. The founding meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, in Addis Ababa in 1963, tacitly affirmed the Latin American influence. ‘We must take Africa as it is,’ said Mali’s president, Modibo Keïta, by which he meant recognising the borders imposed by European colonists as the fixed boundaries of independent nations.

    23. The ideal of sovereignty was extended to cover a nation’s natural resources. In its 1917 constitution, Mexico was the first country in the world to adopt the principle that absolute sovereignty over natural resources belongs to the state. Venezuelan policymakers had pushed for national control of its petroleum reserves since at least the 1930s. The United Nations accepted the legitimacy of resource sovereignty in 1962.

    24. In Chile in the early 1970s, Salvador Allende’s socialist government went a step further, expanding the ideal of sovereignty to cover the value generated by natural resources in the past. Chile claimed the right not only to nationalise foreign property but also to deduct the ‘excess profit’ companies had earned from that property (drawing on arguments made by the Algerian diplomat Mohammed Bedjaoui, who produced a UN report in 1969 arguing for a nation’s right to establish ‘permanent sovereignty’ over its natural resources). Chile calculated that the Anaconda and Kennecott mining companies owed the country $774 million, to be deducted from whatever amount Chile was planning to pay them in compensation for having nationalised them.

    25. The principle of ‘excess profit’ was unacceptable to Richard Nixon’s administration. In an Oval Office meeting on 5 October 1971, the secretary of the treasury, John Connally, described the bill Chile presented to Anaconda and Kennecott as a ‘gauntlet’. ‘Now, it’s our move.’ It was then that Nixon said he decided ‘to give Allende the hook’. Henry Kissinger returned to a pre-FDR maturity/immaturity test of sovereignty to justify Allende’s ousting: ‘I don’t see,’ he said, ‘why we need to stand idly by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.’

    26. The subsequent erosion of the ideal of sovereignty as the foundation of international relations has many causes, including the exhaustion of the New Deal/Keynesian model; the political triumph of the New Right; the economic triumph of neoliberalism; the collapse of the Soviet Union; and the global acceptance of basic human rights, especially to life and bodily integrity, as non-negotiable. But we can chart the beginning of the end of the ideal in Latin America.
    In the 1980s, Reagan’s not-so-secret war on Nicaragua rewrote the terms of law and diplomacy. As Eric Posner has said, Washington’s decision to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in 1986 – in response to a ruling that the US had to pay Nicaragua billions of dollars for laying mines in its waters and conducting an illegal war of aggression – was a ‘watershed moment’ in the United States’ relationship with the international community. The withdrawal would later be cited by George W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, John Bolton (Latin America’s self-styled new libertador, now leading the charge against Venezuela), as a reason for the US not to abide by other multilateral obligations.

    27. The 1989 invasion of Panama had a transformative effect on international law. Thomas Pickering, George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, later said that it paved the way for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Coming just over a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was justified by a hierarchy of rationales. But high on the list was the goal of installing democracy in Panama. Against unanimous hemispheric opposition, Luigi Einaudi, the US ambassador to the OAS, explicitly reclaimed for the United States the right to intervene in the affairs of another country because it considered the quality of its sovereignty unworthy of recognition. ‘Today, we are … living in historic times,’ he said, ‘a time when a great principle is spreading across the world like wildfire. That principle, as we all know, is the revolutionary idea that people, not governments, are sovereign.’

    28. At first, in Latin America, the link between a ‘common good’ notion of citizenship and a ‘common good’ vision of absolute territorial sovereignty was formalistic: individuals, like nations, exist not in isolation but in harmony, bound together as equals by mutual needs and limitations. Over time, a more dependent relationship evolved. Efforts in the 20th century to institutionalise social rights entailed state intervention in the economy, which often provoked domestic and foreign interests to retaliate. Between 1898 and 1994, Washington overthrew at least 41 governments in Latin America. In turn, nationalists, social democrats, populists and socialists came to see social rights and sovereignty as mutually constitutive. It would take a fortified executive with control over both the physical and the social space of the nation to achieve, in Bolívar’s words, the ‘greatest possible sum of happiness, the greatest sum of social security’.

    29. In the decades since the Panama invasion, that link has been broken. The ideal of absolute sovereignty – the undergirding of the liberal New Deal world order – is to a large degree discredited. Post-Cold War globalisation diluted the doctrines of sovereign immunity and non-intervention. To use Kennan’s metaphor, the ransom was paid off. The international community returned – in Iraq and beyond – to an ethic of interventionism in the name of a higher purpose.

    30. There is an ethical and logical consistency to interventionism: a moral common sense that, just as borders shouldn’t divide markets or capital, they shouldn’t protect repressors and illegitimate governments. The world should do something to stop barbarism. The rhetorical consistency of such common sense only amplifies the hypocrisy and double standards – not to mention the often disastrous consequences – of its application. Economic globalisation promised a prosperous, borderless world, even as its promoters signed a raft of treaties that freed capital but effectively criminalised labour mobility. Humanitarian interventionism justifies itself by a universal ideal morally superior to the concept of national sovereignty, but then picks its targets – Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and now Venezuela – according to criteria that have to do with something other than universalism.

    31. The Wall Street Journal reports that Washington’s move against Venezuela is part of a larger strategy to transform the hemisphere. As the administration of William Howard Taft announced in 1911, on dispatching twenty thousand troops to the border to intimidate Mexican insurgents into protecting foreign property, ‘the revolution in the republic to the south must end.’ Washington, Woodrow Wilson said two years later, was ‘going to teach the South American Republics to elect good men’.
    ...
    The Battle for Venezuela Tony Wood (full article)
    "At stake here is the fate not just of Maduro, but of the whole Bolivarian model. It’s no accident that this comes at a moment when the right is flexing its muscles across Latin America; the eagerness with which forces outside Venezuela are seeking to put paid to chavismo is all too apparent"

    Excerpts,

    .... But it’s also true that, economically, any Venezuelan leader would have been weakened by the slump in global oil prices that began in mid-2014. The effects of this were made even worse by the US sanctions that started under Obama, who in March 2015 declared Venezuela an ‘extraordinary threat’ to US national security; under Trump, they have been extended several times.

    But Maduro’s intransigence has been more than matched by that of the opposition. Its leaders are fervently committed to overturning chavismo, driven by a visceral loathing that often comes with a strong dose of racism. The first direct challenges to Maduro’s rule came in early 2014, with a series of protests, the guarimbas, led mainly by the middle class and students. Then, in December 2015, the opposition gained control of the National Assembly: the first time it had a majority there since Chávez took office in 1999. With this, an institutional deadlock came into being that has lasted to this day: chavistas are in charge of the executive and – since Maduro designated a new supreme court in 2015 – the judiciary; but the opposition has the legislature, and refuses to recognise the authority of the other two branches of government. It’s this deadlock that the opposition has now moved to break, with the aid of massive external pressure on Maduro.

    Venezuela’s opposition is a fractious alliance of different tendencies but for the past few years it has been dominated by its most vociferously right-wing components. Their single-minded focus on removing Maduro has spread to the rest of the opposition. Even ‘moderates’ such as the former minister of planning Ricardo Hausmann have recently begun openly calling for a US military intervention. During last year’s Brazilian election campaign, Jair Bolsonaro hinted at military action in Venezuela; after he won, Guaidó’s party, Voluntad Popular, congratulated him and hoped he would help ‘rescue liberty and democracy in Venezuela’. Voluntad Popular is a small party, with only 14 out of 167 seats, but in January it took up the assembly’s presidency, under a rotation designed to stop infighting within the opposition.

    This put Guaidó in pole position. Now 35, he studied in Washington DC, but came of age politically during the anti-Chávez protests of 2007. Though he has been widely fêted in the Western press since his auto-anointment, he wasn’t well known in Venezuela before 23 January, and even now it’s unclear how much support he personally can command. Much the same can be said of the opposition as a whole. It has often boycotted elections it wasn’t likely to win, preferring to impugn the democratic process. Sometimes it has adopted this refusenik stance even when it did win: in October 2017, it took five out of 23 state governorships, but told its candidates not to take the oath of office (four of them disobeyed the instruction). In the 2018 presidential election, a section of the opposition backed Henri Falcón, the former governor of Lara state who split from Chávez in 2010, but the rest decided on a boycott. Maduro won 68 per cent of the vote, on a turnout of 46 per cent – more or less par for the democratic course in the US, but low by Venezuelan standards.

    Guaidó’s claim to power rests on the idea that, since this vote was invalid, not only is Maduro not the legitimate president but, according to a Transition Law the opposition released on 8 January, there is no president. Constitutionally, this is shaky ground. Article 233 of the 1999 Venezuelan constitution specifies the circumstances under which a president can be replaced: death, resignation, removal by the supreme court, physical or mental incapacity, abandonment of post. The National Assembly has a supervisory role to play in each of these scenarios, but nowhere does the constitution say that the legislature can claim executive power for itself. This is why the opposition instead cites Article 333, a provision that exhorts citizens to help re-establish constitutional order in the event that it is derogated by an act of force. In other words, the opposition is claiming the constitution no longer applies but that in the resulting ‘state of exception’ the National Assembly is empowered to bring it into effect once more, as soon as Maduro – whom it calls a ‘usurper’ – is removed. Another significant detail: Article 233 requires new elections within thirty days, but the opposition’s Transition Law makes no such specific commitment.

    The Transition Law is also light on specifics about the opposition’s programme for governing Venezuela although the outlines are clear: the ‘centralised model of economic control will be replaced by a model of freedom and markets’; the chavista social programmes will be replaced by direct (i.e. monetary) subsidies; ‘public enterprises will undergo a process of restructuring … including public-private agreements’ (i.e. privatisations). What’s being promised is a return to the conventional neoliberal wisdom of the 1990s – precisely the set of policies that produced misery in Venezuela, and which propelled Chávez to power in the first place.

    At stake here is the fate not just of Maduro, but of the whole Bolivarian model. It’s no accident that this comes at a moment when the right is flexing its muscles across Latin America; the eagerness with which forces outside Venezuela are seeking to put paid to chavismo is all too apparent.

    The pressure on Maduro has been ratcheted up by the Lima Group, established in August 2017 specifically to work with the Venezuelan opposition to find a ‘solution’ to the crisis. It consists of 12 countries, all of them in the Western hemisphere and predominantly governed by parties of the right. That any self-appointed outside body should have a say in a given country’s affairs is bad enough; but this ad hoc junta’s credentials for pronouncing on democracy in Venezuela are pitiful. In the short time since it was founded, two of its member states have been governed by unelected presidents (Brazil and Peru); one of them has a president who was re-elected by a rigged vote in 2017 (Honduras); one is under UN investigation for corruption (Guatemala); one has been investigated by the DEA for laundering drug money (Paraguay); and there’s no forgetting Colombia, where paramilitary groups routinely murder trade unionists and where, according to 2018’s figures from the UNHCR, there are nearly eight million internally displaced people. (To its credit Mexico, though among the founders of the Lima Group under President Peña Nieto, has distanced itself since López Obrador came to power.)

    In its founding statement, the Lima Group declared its full support for Venezuela’s National Assembly. On 4 January this year, it upped the ante, stating that if Maduro assumed office for a second term the following week it would consider him a usurper – not coincidentally using the same terminology as the Venezuelan opposition. Two days later, the general secretary of the Organisation of American States, Luis Almagro, effectively started the clock on regime change, citing Guaidó’s ‘important constitutional responsibility to initiate Venezuela’s urgent transition to democracy’.

    It was the Trump administration, however, that really accelerated the pace of events. Regime change in Venezuela has been on Washington’s agenda since the early 2000s, but the failed coup against Chávez in 2002, and the boost he got through successive electoral victories and high oil prices, made it impracticable for several years. Venezuela’s economic troubles, and the rolling crisis of legitimacy that has marked Maduro’s presidency, have moved it to the front burner.

    In May 2017, Trump imposed new sanctions on Venezuelan state companies and officials, the first in a series of noose-tightening measures: there were more in August 2017, in March, May, August and November 2018, and on 10 and 28 January 2019. In August 2018, Trump apparently asked aides why the US couldn’t just invade. But until last month, the White House’s preferred scenario was for the Venezuelan army to get rid of Maduro on its behalf. In February 2018 the then secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, casually speculated about the possibility of a military coup, and in September the New York Times reported that the US had been holding secret discussions for the past year with members of the Venezuelan top brass to persuade them to topple their president.

    These evidently didn’t go as planned. On 10 January, Mike Pompeo publicly called on the Venezuelan armed forces to remove Maduro but the Trump administration was already betting on Guaidó. A White House official described him to the Washington Post as ‘the piece we needed for our strategy to be coherent and complete’. The same day, Pompeo called Guaidó and assured him that if he declared himself interim president he would have America’s backing; Mike Pence did the same on 22 January, the day before Guaidó’s proclamation. Trump, Pompeo and Marco Rubio were the first to recognise Guaidó; the Lima Group quickly rubber-stamping the power-grab they themselves had helped bring about. On 4 February European countries followed suit, recognising Guaidó after the expiry of a tough but pointless ultimatum (they had given Maduro eight days to commit to holding new elections).

    What happens next? There is a frighteningly clear path ahead to an escalation of the crisis, including military intervention by the US, possibly alongside its ideological bedfellows in Brazil and Colombia. Having pushed for regime change, the US is not likely to back down quickly.

    As if to signal US intentions, on 25 January Trump appointed as his special envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams, the man who ran the Reagan administration’s dirty wars in Central America, and who worked in the Bush White House during the last US-backed coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002. ‘It’s very nice to be back,’ Abrams said. Guaidó and his external backers clearly expected Maduro to be removed in short order. That he has not been suggests a greater degree of support for him inside Venezuela than the US bargained for, not because Maduro is at all popular, but because the basic fact of sovereignty still matters to enough people; for others, a ‘transition’ shaped by the US may seem too high a price to pay for his removal. The longer Maduro remains in the Miraflores, the more successfully he will be able to depict Guaidó’s parallel government as the creature of outside powers.

    Whatever this crisis is about, it isn’t about restoring democracy and prosperity to Venezuela. To read the Western press, you would think the country’s people were at last about to be set free from the tyranny under which they have been groaning for years, in a Caribbean rerun of the Arab Spring. But we’ve been here many times before. In Latin America alone, the long and disastrous record of US-led interventions is enough to cause alarm about the possible outcomes of this crisis. Even if Maduro is levered out of power, the battle for Venezuela is just beginning
    Last edited by Ludicus; February 10, 2019 at 09:19 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

  2. #262
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,158

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Yes we all know that you only value German lives.....
    It is a legitimate issue, the german federal republic has sworn to protect every german national, even in foreign countries. The arrest of the reporter Billy Six in Venezuela is the same issue as the arrest of Deniz Yücel in Turkey. We have the right to know the circumstances of his arrest (he seems to have been prosecuted by a military trial), and if the charges are false(all he did was making a photo of Maduro), we demand his immediate release. We have no right however to intervene in Venezuela's other internal affairs and decry the presidency of Maduro or his treatment of the opposition as a human rights violation.
    Solidarity with the yellow vests,
    Solidarité avec les gilet jaunes


  3. #263

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    China’s foreign ministry officially backs Maduro. Socialist regimes gotta stick together.
    Guaido is literally and explicitly a socialist.
    https://www.breitbart.com/latin-amer...s-a-socialist/

    not that it actually matters what his political ideology is since he is willing to be an israeli puppet. i say again, left/right and commie/cappy are false dichotomies for retards. israel doesn't play by those rules and neither should we.

  4. #264
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,158

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Guaido is a member of the old Socialist International, which the german social democrats left because it's dominated by 3rd world dictators.
    Solidarity with the yellow vests,
    Solidarité avec les gilet jaunes


  5. #265
    Gallus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,730

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Why is that? Is he not legitimate?
    See this right there is the problem. Foreign countries don't get to decide who is the president of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela do. Every country that picks a side is only making things worse.

  6. #266
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,165

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallus View Post
    See this right there is the problem. Foreign countries don't get to decide who is the president of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela do. Every country that picks a side is only making things worse.
    The US didn’t decide the interim president is Guaido, the constitution decided it was Guaido.
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  7. #267
    Gallus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,730

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The US didn’t decide the interim president is Guaido, the constitution decided it was Guaido.
    You're missing the point. The question of presidency is internal Venezuelan affair. US anouncing their support for Guaido was a disaster, because it was followed by Russia anouncing their support for Maduro. Guess what? One of them is going to lose. And what happens then? When your chosen president ends up exiled or dead, what happens then? Do the US invade? Does Russia invade? This entire thing could have been solved peacefully if Venezuela was left alone, and Maduro was either sworn in or forced to step down. But now half the world has already chosen a side in a conflict that is none of their business.

  8. #268

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Guaidó is trying to sell Venezuela to the IMF, just like the (dozen) previously failed projects in South America.


  9. #269
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,165

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    The Venezuelan people aren’t being given a say, and they need a free election to do that.
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  10. #270
    Diocle's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    More or less, where Desaix has fallen.
    Posts
    12,215

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Some Italian newspapers argue that the deteriorating situation will led to a military crisis with USA involvement, I don't think Trump will ever seriously consider a direct military intervention, what do you think guys?


    I ask because actually the only thing I was able to foresee about Trump, has been his electoral victory, from that moment I systematically failed to forecast his decisions.

  11. #271
    Gallus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,730

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The Venezuelan people aren’t being given a say, and they need a free election to do that.
    Right, so we will fix that how exactly? With sanctions that will cause hundreds of thousands to starve? By turning Venezuela into another USA vs Russia battleground? What exactly was the point of picking a side in this conflict?

  12. #272
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,165

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    The point is getting maduro to step down
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  13. #273
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,158

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Some Italian newspapers argue that the deteriorating situation will led to a military crisis with USA involvement, I don't think Trump will ever seriously consider a direct military intervention, what do you think guys?

    I ask because actually the only thing I was able to foresee about Trump, has been his electoral victory, from that moment I systematically failed to forecast his decisions.
    Your forecasts are consistently bad. Trump has been floating the notion "Why can't we simply invade Venezuela" since the very beginning.
    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...zuela-invasion
    Solidarity with the yellow vests,
    Solidarité avec les gilet jaunes


  14. #274
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,229

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The point is getting maduro to step down
    ...And grab the venezuelan oil.You already know that.I tend to think that there is nothing more corrosive to the rule of law/international stability when foreign governments meddle in the internal affairs of other states. Secretary General Guterres rightly said that "the days of foreign intervention in Latin America are long ago gone" (previous post). Or not? (1)
    The people and the country can certainly be helped with a lifting of the financial blockade - so that Venezuela can buy and sell like any other country in the world - and also with a genuine humanitarian aid.

    (1) The self-proclaimed President does not rule out US military intervention in his own country. I'm not surprised.
    Last edited by Ludicus; February 11, 2019 at 12:41 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

  15. #275
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,165

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Maduro exiles political opponents, curtails human rights and causes an international refugee disaster

    ”Don’t worry guys it’s just an internal problem”

    and also with a genuine humanitarian aid.
    Implying current aid isn’t genuine literally sounds straight from teleSur.
    Last edited by Aexodus; February 11, 2019 at 12:58 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  16. #276

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    I don't think Trump will ever seriously consider a direct military intervention, what do you think guys?
    I doubt it. Remember when Trump was on the verge of attacking North Korea? Or maybe you remember when he was going to invade Iran? I bet that was all pretty good for ad revenue.

    He'll consider anything, usually out loud, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Might mean he thinks there's an advantage in someone else thinking it's going to happen, might be stream of consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    I ask because actually the only thing I was able to foresee about Trump, has been his electoral victory, from that moment I systematically failed to forecast his decisions.
    That's by design, and he maintains that air of unpredictability partly by not actually knowing what he's going to do himself.

    I keep telling you guys it's all in his book, although like I said, I only read part of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #277
    Praepositus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,817

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The Venezuelan people aren’t being given a say, and they need a free election to do that.
    Indeed. That'd be nice in all out countries.

    Venezuela is in the US sphere of influence. Its their baby to knife and boy are they knifing it. I wish my side would put less murderous scum in as dictators, but Maduro is in like Chavez before him because Big Oil couldn't rob the country nicely.

    Now we're being told how awful these faux socialist dictators are, yet the Venezuelans chose them over the US preferred puppets. How bad are the ones we're putting up? Maybe we could just put in a slightly kinder murdering scum dictator for a change.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  18. #278
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    5,165

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Well technically Chavez seized the oil.
    Under the patronage of Pontifex Maximus
    Check out the Post of the Fortnight Competition!
    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen.

  19. #279
    Praepositus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,817

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Well technically Chavez seized the oil.
    Indeed, US interests trump all other considerations. I'm sure it was legal under Venezuelan law, but never get between an oilman and his oil. Saddam found that out. Maybe Iran will find it out too.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  20. #280
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,158

    Default Re: Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

    The oil is a natural resource of Venezuela, how can americans claim ownership? They only had drilling rights in the past. Even my country has laws which allow to seize control of its natural resources.
    Solidarity with the yellow vests,
    Solidarité avec les gilet jaunes


Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •