Four observations on the US kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro
Difficult as it is for westerners to hear, we don’t need a stronger West, we need a weaker one. Harder still, Trump is teaching us that the very concept of 'the West' is an illusion
1. It is a sign of quite how much of a rogue state the US has become that Washington isn’t even trying to come up with a plausible reason for kidnapping the Venezuelan president.
In invading Afghanistan, the US said it had to “smoke out” al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from his mountain lair after the 9/11 attacks. In invading Iraq, the US said it was going to destroy Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened Europe. In bombing Libya, the US claimed it was preventing Muammar Gaddafi’s troops from going on a Viagra-fuelled campaign of rape.
Each of these justifications was a transparent falsehood. The Taliban had offered to hand over bin Laden for trial. There were no WMD in Iraq. And the Viagra story was a work of unadulterated fiction.
But earlier US administrations at least had to pretend their actions were driven by humanitarian considerations and the need to maintain international order.
The charges against Maduro are so patently ridiculous you need to be a Trump fanboy, an old-school imperialist or deeply misinformed to buy any of them. No serious monitoring organisation thinks Venezuela is a major trafficker of drugs into the US, or that Maduro is personally responsible for drug-trafficking. Meanwhile, the firearm charges are so preposterous it’s difficult to understand what they even mean.
2. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has been honest about what the US really wants: control of oil. This is an old-fashioned, colonial resource grab. So why are the media even pretending that there is some kind of “law enforcement” process going on in New York? A head of state has been abducted – that’s the story. Nothing else.
Instead we’re being subjected to ridiculous debates about whether Maduro is “a bad man”, or whether he mismanaged the Venzuelan economy. Sky News used an interview with Britain’s former Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to harangue him, demanding he condemn Maduro. Why? Precisely to deflect viewers from the actual story: that in invading Venezuela, the US committed what the Nuremberg trials after the Second Word War judged to be the supreme international crime of aggression against another state. Where have you seen any establishment media outlet highlight this point in its coverage?
If Sky and other media are so worried about “bad men” running countries – so concerned that they think international law can be flouted – why are they not haranguing Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper over Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity? Doesn’t that make him a very “bad man”, far worse than anything Maduro is accused of? Why are they not demanding that Starmer and Cooper condemn him before they are allowed to talk about the Middle East?
When Russia invaded Ukraine, the western media did not weigh the justifications for Moscow’s invasion, or offer context, as they are now doing over the lawless attack on Venezuela. They responded with shock and outrage. They were not calm, judicious and analytical. They were indignant. They warned of “Russian expansionism”. They warned of Putin’s “megalomania”. They warned of the threat to international law. They emphasised the right of Ukraine to resist Russia. In many cases, they led the politicians in demanding a stronger response. None of that is visible in the coverage of Maduro’s abduction, or Trump’s lawbreaking.
3. The left is often censured for being slow to denounce non-western powers like China or Russia, or being too wary of military action against them. This is to misunderstand the left’s position. It opposes a unipolar world precisely because that inevitably leads to the kind of destabilising gangsterism just demonstrated by Trump’s attack on Venezuela. It creates a feudal system of one lord, many serfs – but on the global stage.
That is exactly what we see happening now as Trump and Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, mouth off about which country – Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Mexico – is going to be attacked next. It is exactly why every European leader, from Keir Starmer to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, sucks up to Trump, however monstrous his latest act. It is exactly why the United Nations secretary general, Antonio Guterres, speaks so limply about the general importance of “the rule of law” rather than articulating a clear denunciation of the crimes the US has just committed.
Hard as it is for westerners to acknowledge, we don’t need a stronger West, we need a weaker one.
But harder still, westerners need to understand that the very concept of “the West” is an illusion. For decades, Europe has been simply hanging on to the coat-tails of a US military behemoth, in the hope that it would protect us. But in a world of diminishing resources, the US is showing quite how ready it is to turn on anyone, including its supposed allies, for a bigger share of global wealth. Just ask Greenland and Denmark.
European states’ true interests lie, not in prostrating themselves before a global overlord, but in a multipolar world, where coalitions of interests need to be forged, where compromises must be reached, not diktats imposed. That requires a foreign policy of transparency and compassion, not conceit and arrogance. Without such a change, in an era of burgeoning nuclear tripwires and growing climate chaos, we are all finished.
4. Washington’s goal is to make Venezuela once again a haven for private US capital. If the new acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, refuses, then Trump has made it clear Venezuela will be kept as an economic basket-case, through continuing sanctions and a US naval blockade, until someone else can be installed who will do US bidding.
Venezuela’s crime – one for which it has been punished for decades – is trying to offer a different economic and social model to America’s rampant, planet-destroying, neoliberal capitalism. The deepest fear of the West’s political and media class is that western publics, subjected to permanent austerity as billionaires grow ever richer off the back of ordinary people’s immiseration, may rise up if they see a different system that looks after its citizens rather than its wealth elite.
Venezuela, with its huge oil reserves, could be precisely such a model – had it not been long strangled by US-imposed sanctions. A quarter of a century ago, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, launched a socialist-style “Bolivarian revolution” of popular democracy, economic independence, equitable distribution of revenues, and an end to political corruption. It reduced extreme poverty by more than 70 per cent, halved unemployment, duadrupled the number of people receiving a state pension and schooled the population to reach literacy rates of 100 per cent. Venezuela became the most equal society in Latin America – one reason why millions still turn out to defend Maduro.
Chavez did so by taking the country’s natural resources – its oil and metal ores – out of the hands of a tiny domestic elite that had ruined the country by extracting the national wealth and mostly hoarding or investing it abroad, often in the US. He nationalised major industries, from oil and steel to electricity. Those are the very industries that Maria Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader feted by the West, wants returned to the parasitic families, like her own, that once ran them privately.
Seeing the way Venezuela has been treated for the past two decades or more should make it clear why European leaders – obedient at all costs to Washington and the corporate elites that rule the West – are so reluctant to even consider nationalising their own public industries, however popular such policies are with electorates.
Britain’s Keir Starmer, who only won the Labour leadership election by promising to nationalise major utilities, ditched his pledge the moment he was elected. None of the traditional main UK parties is offering to renationalise water, rail, energy and mail services, even though surveys regularly show at least three-quarters of the British public support such a move.
The fact is that a unipolar world leaves all of us prey to a rapacious, destructive, US corporate capitalism, which, bit by bit, is destroying our world. The issue isn’t whether Maduro was a good or bad leader of Venezuela – the matter the western establishment media wants us concentrating on. It is how do we put the US back in the box before it is too late for humanity.
https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/four-observations-about-the-us-kidnapping
posted by Satish Sharma at
01:28
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home