Comprehensive Dialogue in Venezuela

It might sound strange, but while the crisis in Venezuela is deepening, with deaths during the protests, there seems to be no way out except real dialogue between everyone involved. Nicolás Maduro’s government is placing his main people at the regional level.

On two recent occasions in the Organization of the American States (OAS), and somewhat similar with respect to Unasur and Celac, they moved at their leisure, thanks to petro-dollars. In these circumstances, which direction does the fulcrum of regional power lean towards?

That María Corina Machado, of the representative opposition, would not have been able to speak before the OAS, thanks to the nit-picking diplomats from Caracas, is good evidence of that. It is interesting to see how the position of Venezuela has changed in just a few days; first, by indicating its distrust with the organization by being the “center of hemispheric imperialism,” and then by using the steamroller of 22 votes in its favor. The ambassador of the stated country, Roy Chaderton, said that this was “a confirmation that the majority of countries [in the OAS] support democracy, and the United States and Canada support the coup-leaders,”* thus telling the Caribbean countries that benefit from Venezuelan oil at subsidized prices that voting for what Caracas says is supporting democracy. Take a look.

Furthermore, a delegation from Unasur visited Venezuela Tuesday and Wednesday to see the serious situation within the country firsthand. The government wanted to get a handle on the schedule of its own interests, meaning vouching for the dialogue of Maduro with various sectors, between entrepreneurs and the Church, but which the opposition — represented by the Democratic Unity Table, MUD and students — excluded themselves from. The rationale for the opposition’s reasoning is that the dialogue cannot take place on the basis of an opponent being disqualified as a terrorist, amid the brutal police repression of armed Chavista civilians, with deaths, injuries and disappearances, and with some consensual and unenforced rules of the game. They do have a point.

For this reason it was very important that Colombian Foreign Minister María Ángela Holguín and her Paraguayan colleague, Eladio Loizaga, pushed for including a scheduled a dialogue with every sector, even with MUD, the students and the Human Rights NGO. They succeeded. This way, things did not turn out the way Maduro would have liked, meaning a visit, which would be fitting for his government. The ministers made some recommendations directly to Maduro, who finished accepting the creation of a National Human Rights Council consisting of different sectors. We shall see what happens.

The arrival of the ministers was preceded, however, by certain warnings of a government which is sinking into authoritarianism. The first of these was the arrest of three active generals for supposedly being behind a coup d’état. This was one more of the nearly 30 attempts at a coup condemned by Nicolás Maduro in the little time he has had in power. None of these condemnations, it is worth noting, has had any repercussion after his statements to the media; without citing evidence or parties responsible, these condemnations are merely gossip.

Furthermore, in addition to the arrests and the sanctioning of two mayors of the opposition ordered by the president, who has since refused to repress the demonstrators, the president of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, decided to take the law into his own hands. Claiming acts connected with her visit to the OAS, he took Parliament member Machado’s seat away from her in the National Assembly. Just like that, without bringing the case before the competent courts and hoping for a judicial decision — which shows the kind of procedural safeguards that the opponents of the regime enjoy.

As this is the case, one should ask themselves if this undesirable “imperialism” which the U.S. exercised for so long on the continent, and which the OAS was a sounding board for, is now exercised by a government that crushes the will by invoking the power of its checkbook. We can call it solidarity, or brotherhood, but at the end of the day it is the same strategy of arm-twisting that others have used before.

*Editor’s note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.