Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The political and ethical dilemma is laid bare. Venezuela faces a crossroads, a crossroads shared by all of Latin America. Which path is preferable for our nations: US interventionism or national resistance from dictatorial governments, claiming sovereignty? It is that stark and discouraging.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize has heightened the current debate. Some say that María Corina Machado did not deserve the prize because she sides with US pressure and threats against the Maduro government and supports eventual military action to “resolve” the internal dispute between the opposition and the ruling party. Critics add that she is in favor of a new type of colonialism, now American, and that this would violate national sovereignty, depriving the Venezuelan people of their right to self-determination. In essence, this argument advocates leaving Maduro in power, as it offers no alternative.
The opposing argument states that Maduro’s government is illegitimate, having lost the presidential elections in his country and having carried out a coup d’état to remain in power. It is through Maduro’s control of the armed forces and the country’s repressive apparatus that he remains in power. He also has the support of interventionist countries, such as the security and intelligence forces of Cuba, and the weapons, troops, and financing of Russia and China, in addition to the platforms for support of the activities of Iran and its allied organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, in Latin America. In warning about this “other” interventionism, the political currents that support Machado point out that US interventionism is a lesser evil compared to that of Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran.
The political currents that support Maduro certainly recall the Monroe Doctrine and the historical US interventionism in the Latin American region. Who can forget Washington’s support for military and/or family dictatorships in the area? Or the promotion of coups d’état such as Pinochet’s in Chile, its support for the Contras in Central America, the invasion of Panama, or the Dominican Republic? Without a doubt, a dark history.
But listening to Claudia Sheinbaum’s stance on Venezuela sends a chill of pragmatism down my spine. It is not difficult to interpret her opinion and, therefore, the position she assigns to Mexico as head of state. She supports keeping Maduro in power, despite electoral fraud. The incredible thing is that the president of Mexico is defending the idea that, in some instances, electoral fraud is justified. She will even say that there are cases where it is a “necessity.” When are those cases? When it is necessary to keep “party comrades” in power.
Of course, there is sufficient evidence that she and her party committed electoral fraud when they came to power, awarding themselves an illegal qualified majority in the Congress of the Union. So, when the Mexican federal executive defends electoral fraud in Venezuela, it is defending itself and seeking to erase the traces of its own fraud. But Sheinbaum said something else, referring to Venezuela and the issue of Maduro’s legitimacy. She said emphatically: “We reject any invasion.” Her statement sounded thunderous, but it also has nuances here and there.
She made no reference to the foreign presence in Venezuela denounced by the opposition, and by María Corina Machado herself: Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as Colombian guerrillas who find refuge with Maduro, and the Aragua Train, too. Those presences are also an invasion. But how could Mexico consider these presences on Venezuelan territory as an invasion, if its government, and the previous one, have allowed those same forces to reside in Mexico? The New York Times made it clear that the presence of large contingents of Russian, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Chinese intelligence operators in Mexico has been facilitated by the Mexican government itself. Are there also Hezbollah and Hamas agents in Mexico?
In this world, who is invading whom? Foreign invasions are an everyday occurrence throughout Latin America. So when the president of Mexico declares herself “against invasions” of our countries, she does so while hiding the foreign invasion in her own country that she has allowed.
The mistake is to think that we must accept a U.S., Russian, or Chinese “invasion.” We need to focus on resolving our conflicts internally, without resorting to a foreign ideological platform for inspiration. Sheinbaum, López Obrador, and Morena obviously think that to defend themselves from US pressure, they must adopt the governance models of the Cuban, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan dictatorships. Which invasion is the good one? The American one? The Russian, Chinese, or Cuban one? It is clear that invasions, wherever they come from, reach our nations because of mistakes in the governance we exercise in Latin American countries. So, what is the alternative?
It must be understood that there is a better alternative to the existential dilemma offered to date between accepting US interventionism or bowing to dictatorship without democratic concessions. These two offers are ideological constructs that are presented as “inevitable “options, but they are not. Instead of believing that Mexico can address its problems on its own, the government promotes the destruction of checks and balances and autonomous bodies, eliminating independent legislative and judicial powers, eradicating free and democratic elections, disregarding private property, and definitively limiting freedom of thought and the press.
What is being promoted is the ultra-concentration of power in the hands of the state. This strategy creates the false illusion that the country has a protective shield against invasions. It is the prelude to the establishment of a dictatorial regime in our country. The government’s heavy hand prevents a series of expressions of discontent among the population, stemming from a faltering economy, less work, and less prosperity for Mexicans.
The only way to prevent foreign invasions is to develop, nurture, and defend a pluralistic, tolerant democracy that extends to all citizens. The only “protective shield” a country can build, if it really wants to eliminate the threat of foreign invasion, is to consolidate its national civic culture and convince citizens of the strategic importance of democratic institutions as the best barrier against interventionist hordes knocking on its doors.
The alternative of a democratic republic with institutions that act as counterweights to power is the best option in the face of the threat of interventionism or dictatorship. Morena does not want us to see the third way because it is not in its interest: its DNA is tied to dictatorship. But Mexico is better served by a democratic republic that guarantees tolerance and respect for alternative opinions and visions of the country.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: