Prof. Chossudovsky is a renowned expert on Latin America and gave an important interview to broadcaster and journalist, Bonnie Faulkner (gunsandbutter.org) and the below is a summary of the key points of this very illuminating interview.
This is an extremely important explanation of the situation, summarised. It is a must read for anyone confused about what is going on in Venezuela.
Prof. Chossudovsky recently discussed the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, and with a good deal of expertise and authority having been a past Advisor to the Venezuelan Minister of Planning.
It is hoped the following accurately distils his views for readers to comprehend the basics of this rather disgraceful attempt at regime change by the US Government.
To start with one must explain the three key objectives of the US:
– Install a US proxy regime,
– Confiscate the country’s extensive oil wealth (Venezuela has the largest oil reserves Worldwide),
– Impoverish the Venezuelan people.
A few weeks ago, President Trump announced that the U.S. would recognize without an election, Speaker of the Venezuelan parliament, Juan Guaidó as the legitimate President of Venezuela.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Vice President Mike Pence called Guaidó the night before Trump’s announcement and pledged that the US administration would support him.
Ironically, Chossudovsky wryly points out, the position of Speaker of the National Assembly (Parliament) of Venezuela, held by Juan Guaidó, is comparable to that of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and, of course, the leader of the majority party, the Democrats, which is currently Nancy Pelosi. There are certain differences from the constitutional standpoint, but what President Trump has intimated in declaring that Guaidó is the interim president of Venezuela is tantamount to saying, “Hey, Donald Trump, what about unelected Nancy Pelosi for US President?”
Why can’t for example President Maduro of Venezuela say, “We would like Nancy Pelosi to be the President of the United States….and then, of course, we’ll go to the UN Security Council to have it endorsed.”
That illustrates the ridiculousness of such political discourse but also the shear fantasy of U.S. foreign policy.
Chossudovsky says it is ‘a novelty’ in relation to regime change. “We have military coups in Venezuela going back to the early 20th century – a whole bunch of military coups. We have color revolutions, which instigate protest movements. That is already ongoing in Venezuela. Then we have this new formula of intimating that we don’t like the President; have him replaced by the Speaker of the House. And that’s, of course, a very dangerous discourse because, as I mentioned, it could backlash onto President Trump himself.”
Russia and China backed Maduro but France, Britain, Spain and Germany said they would recognize Juan Guaidó as President unless Venezuela calls a new presidential election “within eight days”.
But wait a minute. Maduro was elected, he won the Presidency of Venezuela democratically and with a large majority.
France’s President Macron also won the Presidential election with a a very slim majority and nobody is questioning Macron’s Presidency except of course the Yellow Vest movement which is throughout France. That doesn’t seem to be making the headlines anymore and on the contrary people in Venezuela are taking to the streets to endorse Maduro.
The fact of the matter, the Professor continues is that “all these leaders in Europe are, first of all, caving in to U.S. foreign policy; they are essentially behaving as U.S. proxies”.
Adding “Under a constitutional democracy, how is it that they could actually support the United States in calling for the Speaker of the National Assembly of Venezuela to become President of the country? It’s an absurd proposition, and that this would then get to the United Nations Security Council is even more absurd.”
“It’s a very complex process, and I think people have to understand first of all that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves worldwide; more than Saudi Arabia, both traditional crude as well as tar sands, which are extensive but also very easy to manage and produce compared to those of Canada, for instance. What is at stake is a battle for oil.”
Now when we look at what is happening in Venezuela today and where the U.S. policymakers say, “We want to come to the rescue of the people who have been impoverished.”
In reaction, Chossudovsky asserts “this is a nonsensical statement. The history of Venezuela was a history of poverty right until Chavez became President. They retained that level of poverty and exclusion. Not to say that there aren’t very serious contradictions (within Venezuelan society); that’s another issue.”
Further explaining that the “U.S. Foreign policy wants to restore. They want to restore Venezuela as a subordinate country with a poor population and elites that are aligned with the United States. That is the nature of the crisis which is ongoing today in Venezuela.”
Chossudovsky importantly also reminds us “Now, there’s another thing I’d like to mention, which I think is very important. What has been the response today to this crisis? I saw recently a statement by a number of progressive authors and it essentially says that there should be mediation or negotiation between both sides. I think that that is something which is rather much misunderstood. There cannot be mediation between the government of Venezuela and a proxy for the CIA, which is Guaidó.
The Professor concluded by saying “Our thoughts today are with the Venezuelan people”
A final comment I would like to make is before our governments embark on more adventures and regime changes, it might be opportune to ponder these indirectly relevant facts. The US Military deaths in action since 1999 were 5,273. US Veterans since 1999 was a whopping 128,240 and counting. What does that tell you as a reader?
Professor Michel Chossudovsky is author of 11 books. The complete lengthy interview is available on the Global Research website, globalresearch.ca for those interested.