Imperialism, coup d'etat and geopolitics | Academics and a …

The situation unleashed in Venezuela, following the self-proclamation of Juan Guaidó as president in charge of this country, has set off the alarm throughout the region. He also stressed the political follow-up of Mauricio Macri's government, which, in a hurry to align with Washington, broke with the democratic tradition of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. It has been engaged with academics and international badysts to report on the central actors, the role of the world powers, the new aspects and the keys to this conflict, the consequences of which are unpredictable.

• Alejandro Grimson, social anthropologist:

It is clear that Venezuela is facing serious economic, political and institutional problems, but the solution to these problems can never be a coup d'etat, much less that advocated by the United States. In this sense, all the countries in the region that immediately recognized Guaidó as president in charge have a semi-colonial foreign policy, that is, they are governments that are annexes to the North American geopolitical strategy. American for the region. In this regard, it is useful to think about the devices that South America has created and which are nowadays disjoint, like Unasur, a discussion space that could today be an extraordinary lever to generate the only solution of the Venezuela, namely: a dialogue table is formed between the ruling party and the opposition to define a peaceful and democratic solution to the conflict. The attitude of the national government and several political leaders, who have not taken into account the very important processes that make national sovereignty, self-determination and the basic tenets of a diplomacy of Latin America is a concern and they ran away to do something absurd. How will a democratic leader support a coup d'etat? Prompt adherence to the US coup is a useful way to get three or four more votes, ignoring any ethical and democratic principle.

• Amilcar Salas Oroñopolitical scientist

It is more of a structural capitalist order linked to something that appears at certain epochs of history as the basis of invasions, wars or territorial occupations: the notion of "international community". Is there really an international community supporting the coup in Venezuela? There are more countries that recognize Maduro's presidential legitimacy than those who do not. What is the constituent power of this international community? Today, capitalism is entering a phase where this notion only means certain specific interests. The reproduction and repetition of this constituent actor as a propaganda maneuver is only one clear example of how, for some countries, internal legitimacy must be questioned.

One of the unpleasant aspects of this situation, of Argentina, is that it simplifies and degrades the mandate with regard to Venezuela, its option for another form of Republic, the communal institution or the same notion of socialism . There is an interpretative dispute which, around Venezuela, eliminates an enormous poverty by understanding the social and political problems which, as we know, are numerous in Latin America.

• Julio Burdman, political scientist specialized in geopolitics

First, it must be understood that it is a Venezuelan problem that, however, can not be isolated from the global conspiracy in which the support of Guaidó by the United States, Brazil, Becomes central, although the Bolsonaro statement has not been well received by all sectors of his government – and Colombia, and in which Russia and China are also gaining importance with his support for Nicolás Maduro. The attitude of the Argentine government to the Venezuelan conflict is not surprising considering the positions that emerged last time, because of Donald Trump's alignment with the United States. However, we can talk about a methodological leap. Recall that during the first months of the Macri government, when the neighboring country of Mexico's Enrique Peña Nieto formed the Lima group, the official position represented by Susana Malcorra was aimed at a peaceful and democratic exit from the conflict. Today, the situation is different and Argentina has taken sides without taking into account the general context, in which the hypothesis of a military conflict is possible.

• Sebastián Etchemendypolitical scientist

Any position in favor of Guaidó's recognition is not only inadmissible because of the precedent of US direct intervention in the region, but also because it is totally ineffective for a negotiated solution, which is appropriate to underline. In Venezuela, it is difficult to find democratic actors in the sense that they accept the legitimacy of the other, and this must be built. The Argentinian government has followed up, which, in addition to bringing us back to the worst periods of carnal relations, is absolutely ineffective in finding a solution and is further evidence of Macri's lack of sophistication in public policies. It is pathetic that before this serious problem, which requires mediation, there is no badysis and ends up supporting the interventionist position of Trump. This position of encouraging only one party, which is also the hardest and most extreme part of the Venezuelan opposition, does not solve the problem.

• Mariano Fraschinipolitical scientist

What is happening today is another point, perhaps decisive or partial, of this war situation against Venezuela. With the elections of May 2018, the process of delegitimization of Maduro's new mandate is deepened, but the truth is that, in fact, the opposition has not accepted his defeat until the end of May. Presidential election of 2013. Until then. It is considered illegitimate, dictatorial or usurping, as they call it now. The key to understanding this process is undoubtedly the role of the United States in the international political council and in the specific case of South America. It is essential that the United States recovers Venezuelan oil, which means that an unprecedented event is taking place today: for this purpose, it is not accompanied by its usual allies, but by neoliberal governments of the United States. region. Another novelty is the place occupied by China, in geopolitical and economic terms, and by Russia in military terms. That is, it is a process that has its highest and most central point abroad; the Venezuelan opposition is itself behind the wishes and strategies of the United States. In this sense, the resolution will depend a lot on what is happening in the major powers and the possibility of a negotiated solution will involve some kind of agreement between them. The action of the Venezuelan army is decisive as it has always been. Go to Venezuela and understand the party system or the role of the opposition and the ruling party does not make sense: we must badyze the role of the army, which not only occupies the role gendarmes of the Bolivarian Revolution, but also spaces of power, governorates, town halls and ministries. That is why the opposition is unleashed to break this internal front of the army. Otherwise, it is very difficult for these external claws, with the support of the internal minority, to have a positive result.

From Washington, they test and measure how they can persist in a process to end the Venezuelan government. This is not surprising, but it should be noted that this is a fact that occurred when the Venezuelan opposition was exhausted, dismembered, unable to unify a course of political activity more or less predictable. This gives an insight into the issue, as it unites the opposition around a goal that is to legitimize another power in Venezuela, which could appeal to a foreign presence to help it. The additional fact is that the opposition has been converging since a certain state of weakness, which reduces the certainty of the general plan and generates complications for a possible dialogue that the government could establish, at least, with the sector that participated in the presidential conflict.

The centrality of the plan, as a strategic objective of Washington's foreign policy for this period, is very obvious: they are looking for a way to generate a coup that will be "a Pinochet" that is to say that aims to end many lives. In this sense, this democratic opposition is nothing more than a figurehead of interests that are relentless.

In this context, the important thing is not to defend a specific policy, but something from above, namely self-determination and peace.

Report: Sibila Gálvez Sánchez.