On 25th October, the UK Minister for the Americas, Sir Alan Duncan, gave a speech at the Chatham House Latin American Conference 2018, at which he made some general remarks about the UK's "evolving relationship with Latin America" but focused on what appears to be the laying out a new framework for the UK's stance towards the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela: 'Chatham House Latin America Conference 2018; Sir Alan Duncan speech'.

Sir Duncan first sets the scene: "I will [speak on Venezuela] because it is a failing state presenting the deepest man-made economic and humanitarian crisis in modern Latin American history." He recognises that although the pre Chavez ancien régime had an oil-driven golden era, it was wasted in corruption and debt leading to dependence, downward standards of living, stagnation and turbulence thus creating the conditions for change: Hugo Chávez Frías.

Sir Duncan accepts that under Chavez's stewardship Venezuela’s economy did well, its GDP increased, inequality was reduced, unemployment declined, non-oil incomes increased, incentives to attract foreign investment were provided, and (strangely) he suggests that Chavez sought to reduce the size of the public sector, when all its areas (health, education, public transport, infrastructure, and new ministries) underwent massive expansion under Chavez. Sir Duncan's depiction of Venezuela up to 2012 is broadly fair because Venezuela went from a GDP of US$100bn in 1998 to nearly US$500bn in 2013. In fact, Chavez's policies reversed 25 years of economic catastrophe though throughout Chávez's years in office (1998-2013) the media and many mainstream politicians depicted his domestic policies as catastrophic and his government as a threat to civilization (see Alan McLeod's book, Bad News from Venezuela -Rutledge, 2018-).

Then Sir Duncan goes for the stale argument 'socialism of the 21st (or any other) century does not work' by arguing that socialist Chavez overspent thus creating fiscal deficits and inevitably falling into unmanageable debt. Sir Duncan goes on to assert "Chávez's increasingly radical ideology, his hubristic 'socialism of the 21st century', was in fact making it far worse. Even in the 'good times', spending outstripped revenue, and between 2001 and 2011, Venezuela and the state oil company PDVSA issued nearly $50 billion of new debt at increasingly high interest rates. The inevitable then followed: fiscal imbalances led to devaluation which led to rising prices." From this Sir Duncan concludes, "the economic meltdown was entirely self-inflicted." For Sir Duncan, therefore, Venezuela’s migration crisis lies in the socialism of the 21st century "Over 2.3 million Venezuelans have taken refuge abroad – 1.6 million since 2017 according to the International Organisation for Migration."

Sir Duncan's argument then moves to politics stating that limitations on democracy that he alleges, had begun with Chávez, "set in more deeply under the Maduro regime", which he accuses of "the systematic undermining of democracy." He goes further, not only "[Maduro] allows no room for genuine democracy, nor space for political challenge from a free opposition" but on the bases of no evidence, he charges the Bolivarian government with "the manipulation of election after election over the last two years, culminating in a Presidential election last May that few apart from the government itself considered free and fair." Though Sir Duncan stops short of labelling Maduro's government a 'dictatorship', he calls it "a corrupt authoritarian regime". He also repeats the false accusation (already levelled against Chávez but never proved or evidence provided for), that "Maduro is also accused of allowing illegal armed groups and criminal gangs to take refuge in Venezuela. These include dissident FARC who have refused to take part in Colombia's peace process, and also the ELN, another guerrilla group which is waging a brutal campaign of violence in vulnerable communities. He has also stoked tensions with reckless military incursions across the borders in Colombia and Guyana."

In short, Sir Duncan depicts Venezuela as a failing state, whose economy has collapsed, a nation presided by a quasi-dictatorship where there is neither democracy nor free or fair elections, or freedom of the press, a regime that additionally shelters Colombian illegal armed groups and which is a military threat to its neighbours.

He points to a number of actions that are being or are to be undertaken by the European Union, involving heavy interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela aimed at dictating the conditions to be met by the Bolivarian government in its political, economic and social system, arguing that these "measures can be lifted as soon as the government of Venezuela puts these things right" but, he goes on, should the Bolivarian government not go along with them fresh sanctions would be considered "with our international partners".

Sir Duncan's selectivity: Venezuela a failing state

Sir Duncan's argument that Venezuela is a failing state, is false. It seems to be intended more as a political dig than an accurate assessment. In Venezuela all state institutions are working and this includes a functioning government, all ministries, and all other state institutions such as the judiciary, the police, all the country's mayoralties, and all branches of the armed forces. Furthermore, the country is not facing lawlessness or civil turmoil, and there is no question that Venezuela's armed forces not only have the legitimate monopoly over the use of physical force but can and do control the nation's borders, can militarily defend the nation from external attack, and the Venezuelan state successfully interacts with other states, trades with them, strikes bilateral and strategic agreements with other states, participates in international fora, and so forth.

Despite media misrepresentation, state institutions continue to provide their services in constant expanding state action. About 12 million people are at different levels of education with education receiving 22% of the government's budget. No school, university or education institution has been closed down, nor have there been mass redundancies in health, education or public services as a whole, both of which are free of charge. The programme Chamba Juvenil (Jobs for Youth) has found work to thousands of young people, and the world-acclaimed El Sistema of Youth Orchestras reached the 1 million mark of children who have received tuition through it. The proportion of the state budget going to social expenditure went from 61% in 2015 to 75% in 2018. More than 6 million Canaima computers have been given free-of-charge to as many students in primary, secondary and higher education.

On top of all of the above there is a raft of social policies aimed at protecting people’s standard of living such as the monthly distribution of CLAP boxes with food to the poorest at heavily subsidised prices which reaches about 6 million families; the Carnet de la Patria, a sort of credit card for social benefits which currently is received by over 16 million Venezuelans; and regular increases in pensions and wages. On 20 September 2018 FAO published a report listing 39 countries in need of external food assistance, Venezuela was not amongst them. So, it is thoroughly false to depict Venezuela as a failing state, otherwise, it would not have been possible for the government of president Maduro to (thus far) have built over 2.2 million heavily subsidised houses in about 4-5 years, unlike ‘civilised’ countries such as the UK where its government is unwilling to build houses, making it impossible for tens of thousands of young couples to get into the property ladder. Additionally, President Maduro has just signed 28 strategic agreements with China on energy, mining, security, finances, technology and so on, a broad agreement with a country that knows one or two things about economics. The economy in Venezuela is not in state of collapse.

Sir Duncan's selectivity: Venezuela's economic difficulties are 'self-inflicted'

In his depiction of Venezuela, Sir Duncan ignores the very harmful effects of fracking embarked upon by President Obama that deliberately pushed oil prices downward as part and parcel of an explicit geopolitical strategy aimed at harming the economies of Russia, Iran and Venezuela, all dependent on oil exports. The consequence was harmful to Russia and Iran but it was devastating to Venezuela: the barrel of oil went from US$148 in 2008 to US$29 in February 2016. Venezuela obtains 96% of its revenues from oil exports, thus whereas the total export revenues had been US$79bn less than 2 years earlier, by 2016 it had gone down to US$36bn. The very visible hand of the US pushed oil prices down, though more recently market forces have somewhat asserted themselves thus raising the price of oil moving toward US$80 the barrel. Thus, it is simply tendentious to assert that Venezuela's economic difficulties are "self-inflicted".

Sir Duncan also overlooks the consequences of the economic warfare, reminiscent of what was done to Salvador Allende's Chile back in the 1970s, that has been unleashed against Venezuela. Nixon issued orders to make "Chile's economy scream" by means of a tight squeeze on its economy ("cut off economic aid, denied credits, and made efforts to enlist the cooperation of international financial institutions and private firms"). The US Senate Church Committee that investigated US covert action against Allende concluded.

That international "squeeze" intensified the effect of the economic measures taken by opposition groups within Chile, particularly the crippling strikes in the mining and transportation sectors. For instance, the combined effect of the foreign credit squeeze and domestic copper strikes on Chile’s foreign exchange position was devastating.

In Chile the private sector in support of the coup, and egged on by the US, embarked on a broad policy of hoarding of basic necessities and food, black market racketeering, inflationary price speculation, and so forth causing huge hardship on the poor, the political and electoral base of Allende, as a deliberate policy to create the conditions for 'regime change'. Sounds familiar? This is pretty much the 'model' of destabilization being applied against Venezuela, but with the added factors of mass contraband of basic necessities, food and gasoline to Colombia (contraband carried out by well organised gangs and Colombian paramilitaries), and large-scale currency speculation.

The US has imposed a raft of sanctions against Venezuela in the wake of the failure of economic warfare, that despite having wreaked devastation to Venezuela's economy did not lead to the fall of the government. Trump resorted to financial sanctions after the defeat of the six-month wave of violence unleashed by the extreme right wing between February and July 2017 that led to widespread destruction of public and private property, and the death of 143 Venezuelans, some of whom were burned alive.

The set of US financial sanctions is indeed comprehensive and aims at financially asphyxiating Venezuela's economy. They include the prohibition to make dividend payments or other profits to Venezuela's government or government agency (US Executive Order 13808 of August 24, 2017); all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela (US Executive Order 13827 of March 19, 2018); the absolute prohibition for individuals, companies or entities to purchase Venezuelan bonds of any kind, any debt owed by the Venezuelan government, the sale, transfer, assignment, or pledging as collateral by the government or government agency (including the Central Bank and the state oil company, PDVSA) of Venezuela of any equity interest (US Executive Order 13835 of May 21, 2018); and sweeping new sanctions on Venezuela's gold exports. The prohibitions apply to US persons, entities or companies and those resident or operating within US territory or any jurisdiction within the US (i.e., foreign individuals, entities or companies).

Sir Duncan avoids mentioning these crippling US sanctions against Venezuela (about which he must be fully aware) because it contradicts his narrative both that Venezuela's severe economic difficulties are 'self-inflicted' and that Chávez's model of economic development was doomed to fail. He must also be aware of how external factors seek to exacerbate Venezuela's economic woes such, for instance, that precious financial resources that belong to the Venezuelan state are being retained by financial institutions such as Euroclear that is holding on to at least US$1.2bn the Venezuelan government wishes to use to purchase food and medicines. He must also be aware that, in cynical manoeuvre, the US has offered Venezuela US$21 million in 'humanitarian aid' when Venezuela does not need it. Was the Minister for Latin American Affairs of Her Majesty's government not aware of any of this when he asserted that the situation in Venezuela was 'entirely self-inflicted'?

Sir Duncan's contention that Venezuela by December 2017 had "unsustainable levels of debt" is also flawed: Venezuela's external debt is neither unsustainable nor very large. The US financial blockade created a situation where although the Venezuelan state had the resources and was willing to pay, financial outlets that would have to process the transactions, facing potential US punishment, failed to do so. Sir Duncan conveniently ignores the fact by December 2017 Venezuela's debt was 34.9% of its GDP, data registered in The CIA World Factbook which is substantially lower than the debt in many Western European countries, whose debts (Greece, 180%; Italy, 133%; Portugal, 126%; Belgium, 106%; Spain, 98%; France, 97%; Cyprus, 94%; and the UK, 85%) are greater than 80% of their GDP with that of the US being 108% of its GDP.

The very difficult economic situation of Venezuela that causes hardship for the most vulnerable (children, the elderly and the chronically ill) causes despair leading many to emigrate, was coldly calculated. Among some of its consequences are the freezing for the import of insulin, the blockade of malaria medicine, the suspension of funds for buying food, and the blocking of payments for travel by Venezuelan sports teams. Furthermore, Sir Duncan also conveniently ignores the fact that, despite the enormous economic difficulties, in the last 5-6 years Venezuela has paid all its international obligations amounting to over US$75 billion, despite the US blockade and financial asphyxiation, restrictions on the use its own financial resources, the blocking of bank accounts abroad, and economic sanctions. So, although Venezuela is undoubtedly facing hard externally induced economic difficulties, its actual situation is nowhere near Sir Duncan’s misrepresentation.

It is true that tens of thousands of Venezuelans, especially sections of middle class youth, have left Venezuela, but the figure that is banded about that between 1.6 and 2.3 million Venezuelans who would have left Venezuela, is disputed by the Venezuelan government as a gross exaggeration whose purpose is media oriented. In his speech Sir Duncan's asserts that 5000 Venezuelans cross the border in Cúcuta (Colombia) daily quoting the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to back this figure. A joint research conducted by the Colombia's Ministry of Foreign Relations and the IOM revealed (issued in July 2017) that of the total number of Venezuelans who cross to Colombia 69% return on the same day, 23% return in a few months and only 5% wish to stay in Colombia and only 3% wish to migrate to a country other than Colombia. The reasons for crossing are shopping (52%), visit family (17%), work (14%), tourism (5%), studies (2%), other (10%).

The Bolivarian government: "no room for genuine democracy"

Sir Duncan's charge that President Maduro has allowed "no room for genuine democracy" is also untrue. Since 1998, there have been 25 elections in Venezuela and in every single one of them the authorities have done everything in their power to ensure the fullest participation including of opposition parties. It is a well known fact, omitted by the media, that in Venezuela there are at least 14 audits, before, during and after every electoral process, audits which have the full participation of opposition representatives, election specialists, computer technicians and international observers.

Furthermore, in Venezuela political parties operate without restrictions except legal norms on violence and, as elsewhere, they must observe standard election and behaviour norms. Sections of the opposition participate in elections though some boycott some of them refusing to field candidates not because there is any restriction to their electoral activity but because of a political decision. Political parties can organise marches, demonstrations or rallies. There is no media censorship and the overwhelming majority of the media is privately owned and being openly pro-opposition. What Sir Duncan conveniently disregards is the fact that in 2014 and again in 2017, the right wing opposition staged violent street demonstrations, erecting barricades with the explicit aim to oust the government, each lasting six months, something that would not be tolerated anywhere, including the UK. That extreme sections of the opposition are not only externally funded (mainly by the US NED and USAID), but are openly committed to the violent ousting of the democratically elected government is conveniently overlooked. It is most surprising that Sir Duncan fails to mention the 4th August 2018 terrorist attack against President Maduro, the whole military high command and key ministers and political leaders of the Venezuelan government. So, contrary to Sir Duncan’s assertions, it is sections of the opposition that are acting to leave no room to Chavismo.

Sir Duncan charges President Maduro with having "concocted an artificial Constituent Assembly, wholly lacking in democratic legitimacy, which was set up to do the regime's bidding." This is false. There is no concoction; President Maduro's call for the election of a National Constituent Assembly (ANC) is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution in Arts. 347, 348 and 349. Specifically Art. 348 stipulates "The initiative for calling a National Constituent Assembly may emanate from the President of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers…" Art. 348 also makes provision for the ANC to be called by "…the National Assembly, by a two thirds vote of its members; from the Municipal Councils in open session, by a two-thirds vote of their members; and from 15% of the voters registered with the Civil and Electoral Registry." Sir Duncan must be aware that in 2016 the right wing opposition organised a campaign of signature collection aimed at calling elections for a National Constituent Assembly. Right wing opposition's refusal to participate in the ANC election was entirely their own sovereign decision, probably adopted because they did not believe they could win. The ANC was elected under exactly the same conditions and managed by the very same electoral authority, the National Electoral Council, in July 2017 that led to and the recognised the opposition’s victory at the December 2015 parliamentary elections.

In this connection Sir Duncan's appeal for "political consensus rather than polarization" is disingenuous. Since his election to the Presidency in April 2014, President Maduro has publicly exhorted on the right wing opposition to engage in dialogue about 400 times and has vigorously instigated dialogue with them seeking the good offices of UNASUR and other international actors such as the Vatican, including lately, the mediating good offices of former Spanish Primer Minister, José Rodríguez Zapatero and, Danilo Medina, Dominican Republic's President. The last such dialogue took place early in 2018 but, after agreeing to a joint text with the government, Julio Borges, opposition leader, inexplicably refused to sign it.

Sir Duncan's appeal to Venezuela to subordinate itself to the IMF

Sir Duncan's call for the IMF and World Bank to have a say in Venezuela's economic decisions is in line with that of the US and world capital aimed at plunging the nation into financial servitude as these two institutions have done with many countries. Venezuela would simply not accept IMF or World Bank tutelage. In this connection Sir Duncan praises Argentina: "[I] would like to register here the United Kingdom's strong support for President Macri's reform agenda and economic stabilisation plan, and the determination of the Argentine authorities to manage current challenges to achieve long term economic stability."

As is well known Macri's policies have drastically thrown his country's economy into turmoil and IMF tutelage have meant austerity package after austerity package leading his country into debt levels that beggar belief: from US$150 million in 2015 under Cristina Kirchner to over US$260bn in the bare spate of 2-3 years (more details about Macri's devastating policies here). That is, a debt 1733 times greater. Is this what Sir Duncan has in mind with his plea that "Venezuela can return to sensible economic policies, with support from […] the IMF, or the World Bank"?

Argentine President Mauricio Macri has applied horrific levels of austerity against the most vulnerable in society: the poor, the working class, single mothers, pensioners, and has laid off tens of thousands of public sector workers. No wonder Sir Duncan waxes lyrical about Macri's policies, since his own government has been inflicting austerity against similar categories of people, including thousands of disabled people. In the UK food banks for the poor have grown substantially: 1.3 million parcels were given out in the year to April 2018 and "today [UK's] levels of inequality are the same as in 1930." and "More than 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, are living below the breadline."

Sir Duncan suggests that existing EU sanctions can be lifted provided the Venezuela's government accepts what is tantamount to the tutelage of international forces that represent economic interests whose eyes are on oil reserves. As he put it "The revival of the oil industry will be an essential element in any recovery, and I can imagine that British companies like Shell and BP, will want to be part of it." Thus it is not really about democracy or human rights but about mundane economic interest.

Selectivity on concern for human rights

It is interesting that in expressing his general concern about human rights and the migration crisis Sir Duncan fails to mention the 7.7 million of internally-displaced people inside Colombia, and that over 300 human rights and peace activists who have been assassinated by paramilitaries in that country, all due to horrendous levels of state and para-state violence. If this concern were really about democracy and human rights the UK would not be arming the fundamentalist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia to the tilt when it is well known that this weaponry is being used to bomb children and civilians in Yemen. If it were about democracy and human rights, the UK would have stopped its arms trade with Saudi Arabia after the premeditated assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Turkey (so much for Sir Duncan's words about freedom of the media in Venezuela). As is well known, 42% of all UK arm exports went to Saudi Arabia in the last decade. Sir Duncan's party, the Tories, abstained in a vote in the European Parliament calling for an EU-wide arms embargo on Saudi Arabia after the monstrous killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

Sir Duncan asserts that Latin America is characterised by "generosity towards migrants, of which Venezuelans fleeing their country are notable beneficiaries" but he both omits the violent xenophobic reception they have been subjected to in Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Peru, and Panamá and the fact the Venezuela is the recipient of 5.6 million Colombians who live in Venezuela and who are fully integrated into its society where they are entitled to all state benefits such as free education and free health care, and even housing, with thousands receiving state houses from the government's housing programme. Nor does he mention the thousands of Venezuelans who are getting government support because they wished to be repatriated. Sir Duncan also avoids the Honduran migrant crisis and Mr Trump's policy of putting thousands of children of Latino origin in cages separated from their parents in one of the most inhumane US actions against immigrants in many years. Nor is there a moral condemnation of Mr Trump’s deployment of the military against the migrants. This is double standards with a vengeance: when it is Venezuelan migrants, for the US and Sir Duncan all options are open against the government of Venezuela, but when it is Honduran migrants, the US (with Sir Duncan's silence), "all options open" against the migrants.

Laying the ground for 'regime change'?

Up to about the end of 2017, as is the case with other right wing administrations, the UK Conservative government, has shared US criticisms of Venezuela’s system of government but, unlike the US, the UK had maintained a consistent position of dialogue and negotiations to address Venezuela’s difficulties.

President Trump, at the 73rd UN General Assembly on 25th Sept 2018, said that on Venezuela "all options are on the table," Sir Duncan's 25th October 2018 Chatham House speech on Venezuela seems to lay the ground for a Trump-like "solution": "Of course we would prefer a Venezuelan solution, but this has become a regional crisis that will require a concerted regional and global response. The situation needs an intensification of outside pressure […] We will continue to support the EU sanctions regime and indeed would consider fresh regimes in concert with our international partners. All options remain open."

At the 73rd UN General Assembly President Trump said that on Venezuela "all options are on the table, every one, – strong ones and the less than strong ones – and you know what I mean by strong," Does Sir Duncan means the same?

http://misionverdad.com/mv-in-english/sir-alan-duncan-adopts-trumpism-regime-change-in-venezuela