Grabois: "I do not think Venezuela is a dictatorship, nor the dictator of Maduro"

In the middle of crisis in Venezuela, in which the opponent Juan Guaidó he has proclaimed himself president, with the support of many countries in the region, the social leader, who was in recent months close to the former president Cristina Fernández, Juan Grabois, spoke about it with El Cronista.

Among other things, the close leader of Pope Francis He underlined the position taken by the Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, warned that an intervention from the United States This could put Venezuela in a similar situation to Syria and badure it of wanting to control Venezuelan oil wells.

These days, you were talking about Venezuela. You suggest that the ideal is to go on the path of dialogue … what would it look like?

This is what Mexico has planned, what Uruguay, the Holy See, proposes, what Zapatero has tried to do, the former President of Spain, and which, of course, does not work. But, for me, the attitude adopted by Bolsonaro, Macri and Trump responds in the first place to the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States, because I do not believe that Trump is very interested in democracy and rights. of the man in Venezuela. I think he's worried about oil. And, if you follow this interventionist path, the situation will end as in Syria, not with 200 or 300 dead, which is a scandal and that is a lot. But with 3000, 5000, 10,000, 100,000 …

But is a dialogue with Venezuela possible?

Colombia spent 40 years in the civil war and initiated a dialogue with the intervention of Pope Francis, etc.

In other words, do we have to wait 40 years?

No, I think that can be done now, because there is a context to do it. I do not know the particular situation very well, but I understand the situation of extreme polarization, because at least 30% of the current population supports Maduro – a journalist told me today; Let's say that there is 50% of the population fanatically anti-Maduro and 20% in the middle. Well, there are a lot of people on each side. If this is not resolved by the dialogue, it is resolved by the war. There is no other possibility. Because on one side there is the army and the armed people, and on the other side, there are also armed people, or people ready to arm, and countries willing to give them arms. Then, if it is not solved politically, it will lead to a civil war, no matter if the fault is Maduro or Trump.

Do you think Maduro is ready to start a dialogue?

Yes, I think so But not because it's good or bad, but because of common sense. And I think that Guaidó must also be ready to start a dialogue. Do you know who, in my opinion, does not want to start a dialogue? Americans.

But they are the main buyers of oil …

Yes, but they do not want to buy it at the price they buy. That's the problem, and they want to control the wells, not buy it. Because they also bought oil from the countries they invaded. They have a geopolitical strategy as in Syria. It is a struggle of the great powers where the worst thing that can happen to the people is to get caught up in the war.

How would you define the Maduro government? As a dictatorship or as a democracy?

No, I do not think it's a dictatorship. I think it's a state in crisis. I would not call it a dictatorship, I do not think, for example, of what happened in Brazil, Lula's ban being less serious than that of Venezuela, with the half-elections that took place. occurred at the end. But, I'm not an expert on the subject either. Obviously, when we see the mbad mobilizations they have in Venezuela and extreme polarization situations like this one, it is clear that a very large part of the population is opposed to it. And that, you put the qualifier that you put, you have to solve. And you can not solve the blows, neither on one side nor on the other. It's as if, fortunately, at the time of the 125, here in Argentina, no one thought of taking a revolver. Neither the government nor those on the ground.

But what happens in Venezuela with Maduro is not the same as the 125 at Kirchnerism …

No, but there was a polarization situation. Then there are the conditions for a war to develop. What you must understand is that in Venezuela, there is no discussion between the Swedish, Finnish and German democracies. Otherwise, war or not war. This is the discussion: whether there is a political solution or not. Nobody has said that in terms of the dialogue with the FARC, if they were drug traffickers, they had a little reason, a lot of reason, if any. You want to give a political solution to an existing problem.

And what should the international community do?

What did López Obrador, the brightest guy in Latin America today? Which is to say: "I will not give notice if I ripen this or that" …

But in the meantime, 10% of the population has already migrated, there is a lack of food, medicines … and these people?

Whenever we tried to use humanitarian situations to justify external interventionism, things went wrong. So what López Obrador says, which comes under the most absolute common sense, is to put at the disposal of the Mexican state, to seek a dialogue solution. Then another thing that I think is important is who puts on the agenda what are the significant violations. The agenda is set by the Americans. They want to talk about Nicaragua, Venezuela. The United States violates international public order, as usual, especially in Trump's time and with two pathetic allies, like Macri and Bolsonaro, that Bolsonaro is directly an infamous fascist, The sign of the campaign is a weapon fire. Will this man talk about democracy and human rights? He has no moral authority.

And how do you define Maduro?

Look, I do not have an exact definition. I do not like what they do in Venezuela, but I do not have a definition. If the definition is dictator or non-dictator, I do not define it as dictator. How to define Macri? As president that I do not like, what do I know? I do not like what is happening, but it is clear that the president of this country is Maduro, not this boy. Because if not tomorrow I proclaim myself president and, without any legal justification, because I do not like Macri. In other words, it is such a bad antecedent for international public order. And apart from that, it will come up against a lot. Because if it's for a place … because what is the norm to accept political violence from civil society?