As Nicolás Maduro is sworn in for a new presidential term on January 10, Washington is bound to ratchet up its campaign to isolate Venezuela politically and economically. A few days earlier, U.S. Congressional Representatives belonging to the Democratic Party – with somewhat of a new face – initiated their term 2019-2021. Its Progressive Caucus now has 98 congressional members, by far the party’s largest.
If the Progressive Caucus were to place the issue of Venezuela on the table for discussion as part of its critique of the policies of the Trump Administration, it would be doing a great service to the campaign against the illegal financial sanctions that have caused so much suffering to the people of Venezuela. In particular, Bernie Sanders, who needs to assume bold and principled positions as he did in 2016 to differentiate himself from other Democratic politicians with presidential ambitions, would do well to take up the issue.
Of course, Sanders and other Democrats cannot – even if they wanted to – use the arguments employed by those further to their left. If Sanders were to point to the progressive policies initiated by Hugo Chávez which Maduro has retained – such as his nationalistic foreign policies and social programs empowering the poor – the Democratic National Committee aided by the mainstream media would show Sanders to the party ‘s door.
So if Sanders were to take up the issue, how would he respond to the predictable objections from the media as well as political adversaries to his right? The following are the politically-charged questions which Sanders would likely get from the press, along with his possible responses.
Press. You oppose sanctions against the Maduro dictatorship, but you support measures against Saudi Arabia for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Isn’t that contradictory, if not hypocritical?
Sanders. No one in Washington is talking about regime change in the case of Saudi Arabia. That’s up to the Saudi people. In the case of Venezuela that’s what the sanctions are all about: getting rid of Maduro. If there’s anything hypocritical, it’s Washington’s activism in favor of regime change of governments we don’t like, while maintaining friendly relations with others which are anything but democratic. To make matters worse, we provide generous amounts of aid, including military aid, to those same regimes.
Press. Are you opposed to trying to remove an unpopular regime?
Sanders. I wouldn’t say it’s out of the question, but history shows that such a strategy needs to be carefully thought out because the results have often been disastrous. One factor that has to be taken into account is whether there is a united opposition with recognized credibility that can take over and maintain stability. That certainly wasn’t the case in Libya and Syria. And it doesn’t seem to be the case in Venezuela. The Venezuelan opposition is divided between those who favor participation in elections and those who oppose it, between those who support a military option and those who are against it. Furthermore, some of the opposition parties have lost credibility because they went so quickly from backing demonstrations to oust Maduro, which resulted in scores of deaths, to participating in elections. I am told that many of those who are adamantly opposed to Maduro are also extremely skeptical of the opposition.
Press: But shouldn’t Maduro be placed in the same category as that of the Saudi government and other brutal dictatorial regime?
Sanders. First, let me make clear, I am no defender of the Maduro government. But it seems to me that distinctions need to be made. Khashoggi was murdered even though he wasn’t leading a movement to overthrow the government. In fact, he was a moderate. While police brutality has to be condemned regardless of circumstances – and there’s been plenty of it in Venezuela under Maduro – nevertheless, the context has to be considered. In the protests in Venezuela there has been extremes on both sides. Six national guardsmen and two policemen were killed in the protests in 2014 calling for regime change. What would happen here in the U.S. if protesters attempting to overthrow the government killed policemen? Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are separate cases and have to be considered separately.
Press. Then the U.S. should turn a blind eye to what is happening in Venezuela? Are you an isolationist?
Sanders. Definitely not. I think Washington should play an active role in its relations with Venezuela, but of a different nature. The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, is no buddy of Maduro, but he has stated that he wants Spain to help broker negotiations between both sides in Venezuela and reach a consensus as to what needs to be done. Venezuela is in a crisis-type situation economically and no side has magical answer for getting the country out of it. Only through some kind of consensus can the country move forward. If that doesn’t happen Venezuelans of all classes and political persuasions will suffer and they will continue to leave the country, thus aggravating instability throughout the region. We have to think of an effective approach to reverse this trend. Trump’s policy of sanctions, threats of military intervention and support for a military coup has been anything but effective.
These, in short, are arguments that Bernie Sanders and other members of the Progressive Caucus can use to counter the inevitable barrage of attacks that any opposition to sanctions on the Hill will invite. Fear of facing these issues has made criticism of U.S. policy toward Venezuela virtually taboo, even for bold politicians like Sanders. Given the major blunders in U.S. foreign policy over the recent past, revision and debate are in order. Specifically, in the case of Venezuela, the issue of international sanctions needs to be placed on the table.
Please Help ZNet and Z Magazine
Due to problems with our programming that we have only now finally been able to fix, it has been over a year since our last fund raising. As a result, we need your help more than ever to continue to bring the alternative information you have been looking for for 30 years.
Z offers the most useful societal news we can, but in judging what is useful, unlike many other sources we emphasize vision, strategy, and activist relevance. When we address Trump, for example, it is to find ways beyond Trump, not to merely repeat, over and over, how terrible he is. And the same is true for our addressing global warming, poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, and war making. Our priority is always that what we provide has potential for aiding determining what to do, and how best to do it.
In fixing our programming problems, we have updated our system to make becoming a sustainer and giving donations easier. It has been a long process but we are hopeful it will make it more convenient for everyone to help us grow. If you have any trouble, please let us know right away. We need input on any problems to make sure the system can continue to be easy to use for everyone.
The best way to help, however, is to become a monthly or annual sustainer. Sustainers can comment, post blogs, and receive a nightly commentary by direct email.
You can also or alternatively make a one-time donation or get a print subscription to Z Magazine.
Subscribe to Z Magazine here.
Any aid will help greatly. And please email any suggestions for improvements, comments, or problems right away.