The fact that for the U.S. the issue in Venezuela is oil, not democracy, will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves on the planet.
Washington seeks control of Venezuela because it sits atop the strategic intersection of the Caribbean, South and Central American worlds. Control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.
United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, recommended, just a few days ago, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as a possible crime against humanity perpetrated by the U.S..
Over the past five years, American sanctions have cut Venezuela off from most financial markets, which have caused local oil production to plummet. Consequently, Venezuela has experienced the largest decline in living standards of any country in recorded Latin American history.
Prior to American sanctions, socialism in Venezuela had reduced inequality and poverty whilst pensions expanded. During the same time period in the U.S., it has been the absolute reverse. Hugo Chavez funnelled Venezuela’s oil revenues into social spending such as free+6 healthcare, education, subsidized food networks, and housing construction.
In order to fully understand why the White House is waging economic war on the people of Venezuela one must analyse the historical relationship between the petrodollar system and Sanctions of Mass Destruction: Prior to the 20th century, the value of money was tied to gold. When banks lent money they were constrained by the size of their gold reserves. But in 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon took the country off the gold standard. Nixon and Saudi Arabia came to an Oil For Dollars agreement that would change the course of history and become the root cause of countless wars for oil. Under this petrodollar agreement the only currency that Saudi Arabia could sell its oil in was the US dollar. The Saudi Kingdom would in turn ensure that its oil profits flow back into U.S. government treasuries and American banks.
In exchange, the White House pledged to provide the Saudi Royal family’s regime with military protection and military hardware.
It was the start of something truly great for the U.S.. Access to oil defined 20th-century empires and the petrodollar agreement was the key to the ascendancy of the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower. America’s war machine runs on, is funded by, and exists in protection of oil.
Threats by any nation to undermine the petrodollar system are viewed by Washington as tantamount to a declaration of war against the United States of America.
Within the last two decades Iraq, Iran, Libya and Venezuela have all threatened to sell their oil in other currencies. Consequently, they have all been subject to crippling U.S. sanctions and to military intervention. Except for Iran, for the time being.
Over time the petrodollar system spread beyond oil and the U.S. dollar slowly but surely became the reserve currency for global trades in most commodities and goods. This system allows Washington to maintain its position of dominance as the world’s only superpower, despite being a staggering $23 trillion in debt.
In order to fully understand the insidious nature of the Venezuelan crisis, it is necessary to understand the genesis of economic sanctions. At the height of World War Two, President Truman issued an order for American bombers to drop “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 140,000 people instantly. The gruesome images that emerged from the rubble were broadcast through television sets across the world and caused unprecedented outrage. The political backlash forced U.S. policy makers to devise a more subtle weapon of mass destruction: economic sanctions.
The term “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) was first defined by the United Nations in 1948 as “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above”.
Sanctions are clearly the 21st century’s deadliest weapon of mass destruction.
In 2001, the U.S. administration told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; Iraq was a terrorist state; Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It all amounted to nothing. In fact, the White House already knew that the only weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had were not nuclear in nature, but rather chemical and biological. The only reason they knew this in advance was because the U.S.sold the weapons to Saddam to use on Iran in 1991.
What the U.S. administration did not tell us was that Saddam Hussein used to be a strong ally of the United States. The main reason for toppling Saddam and putting sanctions on the people of Iraq was the fact that Iraq had ditched the Dollar-for-Oil sales.
The United Nations estimates that 1.7 million Iraqis died due to Bill Clinton’s sanctions; 500,000 of whom were children. In 1996, a journalist asked former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, about these UN reports, specifically about the children. Washington’s top foreign policy official, Albright, replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions policies are nothing short of state-sanctioned genocide.
Over the last five years, sanctions have caused Venezuelan per capita incomes to drop by 40 percent, which is a decline similar to that of war torn Iraq and Syria at the height of their armed conflicts. Millions of Venezuelans have had to flee the country. If the White House is so concerned about refugees, Trump should stop furthering disastrous foreign policies that actually create them.
Another much vilified leader who used oil wealth to enrich his country, only to be put under severe sanctions, is Muammar Gaddafi. In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his quest to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. Dollars and denominate crude sales in a new gold backed common African currency. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold-backed Dinar currency.
Africa has the fastest growing oil industry in the world and oil sales in a common African currency would have been especially devastating for the American dollar, the U.S. economy, and particularly the elite in charge of the petrodollar system.
It is for this reason that Bill Clinton signed the now infamous Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which the United Nations Children’s Fund said caused widespread suffering among civilians by “severely limiting supplies of fuel, access to cash, and the means of replenishing stocks of food and essential medications.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions are weapons of mass destruction.
Not so long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa, with the highest regional standards of living. Nowadays, U.S. Military intervention and economic sanctions have turned Libya and Iraq into two of the world’s most failed nations.
“They want to seize Libya’s oil and they care nothing about the lives of the Libyan people,” remarked Chavez during the Western intervention in Libya in 2011.
In September 2017, President Maduro made good on Chavez’s promise to list oil sales in Yuan rather than the US dollar. Weeks later Trump signed a round of crippling sanctions on the people of Venezuela.
On Monday, U.S. National Security adviser John Bolton announced new sanctions that essentially steal $7 billion from Venezuela’s state owned oil company. At that press conference Bolton brazenly flashed a note pad that ominously said “5,000 troops to Colombia”. When confronted about it by the media, Bolton simply said, “President Trump stated that all options are on the table”.
The United States’s media is unquestionably one of the most, when not just corrupt, gullible of the "free world". The nation’s media may quibble about Trump’s domestic policies but when it comes to starting wars for oil abroad they sing in remarkable unison. Fox News, CNN and the New York Times all cheered the nation into war in Iraq over fictitious weapons of mass destruction, whilst America was actually using sanctions of mass destruction on the Iraqi people. They did it in Libya and now they are doing it again in Venezuela. Democracy and freedom have always been the smoke screen in front of capitalist expansion for oil, and the Western Media owns the smoke machine. Economic warfare has long since been under way against Venezuela but military warfare is now imminent.
Trump just hired Elliot Abrams as U.S. Special Envoy for Venezuela, who has a long and torrid history in Latin America. Abrams pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Iran Contra affair, and was the worst scandal in the Reagan Era. Abrams was later pardoned by George Bush Senior. The White House’s new point man on Venezuela also lied about the largest mass killing in recent Latin American history by U.S. trained forces in El Salvador.
There is nothing more undemocratic than a coup d’état. A UN Human Rights Council Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, pointed out that Washington's aim in Venezuela is to “crush this government and bring in a neoliberal government that is going to privatise everything and is going to sell out, a lot of transitional corporations stand to gain enormous profits and the United States is driven by the transnational corporations.”
Ever since 1980, the United States has steadily devolved from the status of the world’s top creditor country to the world’s most indebted country. But thanks to the petrodollar system’s huge global artificial demand for U.S. dollars, America can continue exponential military expansion, record breaking deficits and unrestrained spending.
The United States’ largest export used to be manufactured goods made proudly inside the country. Today, its largest export is the U.S. dollar. Any nation like Venezuela that threatens that export is met with Washington’s second largest export: weapons, chief amongst which are sanctions of mass destruction.
Max Blumenthal asks American congress men&women: Is the U.S. meddling in Venezuela?
“A sordid cradle of communism,” Bolton calls those countries. Very much in the spirit of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” Bolton contends that “we are also confronted once again with the destructive forces of oppression, socialism and totalitarianism. Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores in this hemisphere. We will not reward firing squads, torturers, and murderers … The troika of tyranny in this hemisphere—Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua—has finally met its match.”
Nicolás Maduro’s government is first on Trump’s hit list.
For several months in 2017 the administration reportedly held discussions with dissident members of the Venezuelan military and security forces about supporting a coup or even an invasion (Julian Borger in The Guardian, July 5, 2018). In this instance Trump’s advisers consulted US diplomats, and they apparently urged the military not to act against Maduro.
The Venezuelan coup plotters hoped to get communications equipment. They were eventually rebuffed—not, apparently, because of the military’s known human rights abuses or involvement in drug trafficking, but simply because the plotters seemed unlikely to succeed. But in fall 2018, with Pompeo at the helm, the state department announced that it would “use the full weight of American economic and diplomatic power to help create the conditions for the restoration of democracy for the Venezuelan people.”
What the US aims to “create” is regime change. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on January 22, Vice President Pence called Maduro “illegitimate,” then secretly (according to the Journal on January 25) offered support to Juan Guaidó, the leader of the national assembly, to take over as interim president. Trump followed by recognizing Guaidó and saying that “all options are on the table.”
Grayzone project: The Making of Juan Guaidó
US reliance on sanctions, as a Congressional Research Service report in November 2018 emphasized, might well exacerbate the crisis, which is why “many Venezuelan civil society groups oppose sanctions that could worsen humanitarian conditions.” Venezuela was actually reaching out for international assistance in response to US sanctions when Trump’s far-right advisers ratcheted up the pressure.
The US is not leading a humanitarian intervention in Venezuela. Regime change has nothing to do with alleviating human rights conditions or promoting democracy, as support of repressive far-right governments in Brazil and Guatemala shows. It matters not that the Organization of American States, the European Union, and several Latin American countries want to see Maduro out—nor that Russia, China, and Mexico are among those that support Maduro. What matters is that interventionism in Latin America is being restored, complete with the appointment of Elliott Abrams, the convicted Reagan adviser in the Iran-Contra affair, to head up the Venezuela effort.
As a member of Mexico’s ruling party said: “Nothing will contribute more to the questioning of the legitimacy and credibility of Juan Guaidó than the support he is receiving from the United States. We are in Latin America and this should be understood by the White House.” If regime change succeeds in Venezuela it may well be applied to Nicaragua and Cuba, the other two targets. Trump has already undermined the gains from Obama’s normalization of ties with Havana.
Washington evidently has given no thought to what unilateral interference means for the U.S.A's reputation, international law, US criticisms of Russian and Chinese aggression, and the possibility of fomenting civil war in Venezuela. But there are alternatives to outside intervention. One is that Maduro accepts an amnesty offer from Guaidó and leaves the country, or (as the EU demands) agrees to hold new elections under international supervision. The Venezuelan military would probably be relieved not to have to defend him; it is already divided over loyalty to Maduro.
A second alternative is the UN’s Responsibility to Protect Resolution (R2P), passed by the General Assembly in 2005. That instrument, which requires Security Council approval to invoke, is intended to apply to states in which large numbers of people are under threat and their government is unwilling and unable to provide for its citizens—in other words, large-scale crimes against humanity. But R2P could be used to protect Venezuelans from the outrages of their failing state, though a Russian or Chinese veto makes that unlikely. If Maduro insists on staying on, the UN—not the US alone—could either attempt to broker a deal between him and Guaidó or put the squeeze on the regime economically and politically under provisions of R2P.
Both these alternatives aim at conflict prevention and minimization of human suffering. Use of force must be avoided and the crisis must not become an echo of the Condor Operation in the sixties and the Reagan-era Cold War competition.
Inside Story: Will the UAE face sanctions over Venezuelian gold?
BRASIL
Brasil's new President, the neofacist Jair Bolsonaro, has just completed his first month in office and cracks have started appearing in his eclectic selfish narrow minded electoral base.
Bolsonaro, a former military officer who was a member of the Brazilian Congress for nearly three decades without leaving a legislative trace, rose to prominence last year after securing significant support from discordant right-wing groups.
The business circles in Brasil put their support behind the far-right politician mainly because he promised to revive the country's "sluggish" economy, pass business-friendly reforms, downsize the public sector, reduce the fiscal deficit and tackle its unsustainably expensive pension system.
However, a month into his term, Bolsonaro still has not presented any details of his proposed economic reforms and policies, which has caused jitters in the market and a sense of alarm within the president's inner circle. Moreover, he continues to make controversial and contradictory statements, leading many to question his commitment to making Brasil "business friendly".
Only three days after taking office, for example, Bolsonaro said that he would increase the minimum retirement age to 62 for men and 57 for women - numbers significantly lower than the ones promised by his predecessor - signalling that he is planning to water down his campaign promises on radical pension reform.
On the same day, he also announced that he had reservations about the planned sale of a stake in local jet-maker Embraer to US aircraft maker Boeing, causing the value of its stock to plunge by five percent. Days later, however, his government approved the sale.
In mid-January, Bolsonaro faced a mini ideological crisis. An official visit of MPs from Bolsonaro's Social Liberal Party to China angered some of his supporters. While doing business with China is good for the big capitalists backing the government, de Carvalho, his supporters and many others saw that business trip to a "communist" (!) country as a "betrayal".
They emphasised the fact that many right-wing Brazilians voted for Bolsonaro because they believed he would pursue an anti-communist, right-wing agenda. The president had indeed made his anti-communist stance a major speaking point during his election campaign, even declaring that he is supporting US President Donald Trump's trade war against China.
Yet, as much as Bolsonaro admires Trumpism and hates communism, he can't do away with the fact that China is Brasil's top trading partner, importing more than twice as much Brazilian goods as the US does. How the Brazilian president is going to keep his anti-commie and pro-business supporters happy at the same time is anyone's guess.
The other major factor that contributed to Bolsonaro's election Victory in October was his promise to fight corruption, which caused the widespread public disenchantment over a series of mega scandals that tarnished two Workers' Party governments.
However, in his first month in office, the new president has failed to make much progress in the fight against corruption. On the contrary, Bolsonaro and his family have faced a series of corruption scandals, leaving many of his supporters disturbed and disillusioned.
An investigation by the Financial Activities Control Council (COAF) recently unearthed suspicious financial transactions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars made to the bank accounts of the president's oldest son and elected Senator, Flavio Bolsonaro, and the "first lady", Michelle. The payments were made by Flavio's former driver Fabricio Queiroz, who claimed that he obtained the money he transferred to the president's family legally, by selling used cars.
Another series of suspicious cash transfers worth nearly $30,000 were also made to Flavio's bank account. COAF report said the origin of the money was unclear, but the fact that all transfers were made at a bank at Rio's state legislative assembly, where Bolsonaro's son worked, made them suspicious. The new elected senator senator defended himself by saying the money he deposited was from "the sale of an apartment". Well, Well, Well.
Of course this is peanuts compared to the real money, maybe hidden in Tel Aviv, the new haven for evangelical and Jewish dirty money.
In light of the corruption scandals surrounding the Bolsonaro family, the MPs' "ill-advised" trip to China and the president's apparent lack of vision regarding the future of Brasil's economy, some of his supporters appear a bit less enthusiastic about his presidency now.
Many of those who had been vocal on social media previously are staying silent about these mishaps. Some are even saying that they are ashamed of their vote.
For those of us who saw through Bolsonaro's act last year, neither the corruption scandals, nor his lack of vision and consistency seems surprising. After all, he has long been a textbook case of what is known in Brasil as "lower clergy" (baixo clero): politicians with little power, vision or clout, motivated not by a desire to influence the future of the country, but by a determination to stay in office at any cost so as to line their pockets.
BBC: How Brazil's dream died
130 Israeli soldiers arrived in Brazil to intervene, from our soil, in Venezuela's coup, Under cover of helping out in Brumadinho (! With what?).
Shame on Bolsonaro. Would sending armed murderers be better for our neighbours or worsen the situation?
This is Bolsonaro's "ideology-free" rule. Refusing Cuba doctors but requesting Israel's army to Brumadinho, the same army that oppress and kill palestinians.
Does Binyamin Netanyahu believe that such hasbara of "humanitarian" missions will cover their daily crimes against the Palestinians!? The latest Killing of 16-year-old innocent girl happened just last Week.
Pela primeira vez na história brasileira, soldados estrangeiros desembarcaram no Rio de Janeiro pondo em risco nossa soberania e a segurança dos venezuelanos. Os 130 assassinos profissionais da IDF (forças armadas israelenses) foram convidados pela dupla Trump & Bolsonaro para usar o Brasil como passagem para a Venezuela.
Estes 130 são só o começo de tropas inteiras que depois não deixem mais nossa Amazônia, após roubar o petróleo venezuelano sob as ordens da Casa Branca.
O recentíssimo colaboracionismo entre o Planalto e Israel vem de setores evangélicos (sionistas cristãos) e de bolsomínios que nada sabem sobre o conflito além dos clichês de sempre. Usam a estratégia manjada e calhorda de atribuir críticas ao Estado terrorista de Israel ao ódio aos judeus.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário