What does Hugo Chávez's ideologue think about Nicolás Maduro's government and the crisis in Venezuela?

If, in a Caracas street, he asks a citizen if he knows who Heinz Dieterich is, he can not identify him. However, if you are talking about your "21st century socialism", it will tell you immediately a name:

Hugo Chavez.

The dead president took over the concept created by Dieterich to the point of giving him worldwide visibility when he mentioned it in a speech delivered at the meeting of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (Brazil) in 2005.

But the relationship between this German sociologist, who had lived in Mexico for several decades, and the leader of the Bolivarian revolution, had begun several years earlier. Both had met in December 1999, when Chávez was already in charge

Venezuela

and Dieterich was a recognized intellectual left, who even had in his possession a book written with the intellectual Noam Chomsky.

Since then, both conversations have been long and until 2007, there was a distance. These eight years of contacts allowed Dieterich to get a clear idea of ​​Chavismo and several of its protagonists, including

Nicolás Maduro.

In this perspective, Dieterich badyzes in a conversation with BBC World the crisis triggered by

Venezuela

since Maduro took his second presidential term on January 10, after winning an election that the opposition does not recognize and after the oath of office of the president of the National Assembly,

Juan Guaidó,

as "president in charge", which the ruling group rejected as "attempted coup d'etat".

– You have been an adviser to President Hugo Chávez, who has adopted his concept of 21st century socialism. What is your badessment of what has happened in Venezuela in the last two decades?

– Hugo Chávez was a Christian attached to the limits of a professional soldier who, when in contact with the international world, learns quickly and intends to carry out a project of structural reforms for the benefit of the majority.

He had no name for this project and when we met, he found that "21st century socialism" could differentiate his proposal from anything on the political market. Then he adapts it and designs a model that runs until 2010 and which relies on a $ 120 barrel of oil and on coexistence with the bourgeoisie. This model is beginning to turn to water when the global economy changes and the structural reforms necessary for a modern state are not implemented.

Having not trained young people with a political ethic and without having created a party as the driving force of the process, this falls into the hands of Maduro and deteriorates completely as it revolves around one axis: staying at power.

Maduro does not know the signs of reality such as, for example, the 2015 parliamentary defeat, the unstoppable inflation figure and the growing isolation. By not understanding these parameters that show that the model is seriously ill and needs to be changed, the downward spiral ends with what we see now: Maduro's exit.

– In the current political crisis in Venezuela, you talked about "the final badault of the Empire", with reference to the United States. From your point of view, what is the role of the government of

Donald Trump

in this situation?

– Last year, Trump entered a phase of weakness, mainly because he had lost the mid-term elections to Democrats and that he seemed able to verify collusion with Russia to win The electoral campaign. likely to end with a
impeachment (impeachment) very soon.

He is so weakened that he needs some kind of success. The generals have left the cabinet and he remains with a troop of ideologues very dangerous for peace in the world, as advisor for national security, John Bolton, or Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

These people realize that there can be an inexpensive victory in Latin America because the Maduro regime has more strength. They say, "We are going to take advantage of it to get Maduro out, it can be a great success for democracy and Trump will be responsible for it." Thus, the policy against Maduro has increased. They confiscate Citgo, block funding and militarily threaten the alliance with Colombia and Brazil. Then, it is quite clear that Maduro has no salvation, because Europe, the United States, Japan and the big countries of South America join this aggression.

It's such an overwhelming attack that it's absolutely clear that there's no salvation for Maduro. Venezuelan generals know they have to sacrifice it because

Washington

He was smart and offered an amnesty. They will take him and tell him that for peace and the refoundation of the country he must exile himself. If he refuses, he will be warned that they can not guarantee his safety. So he's going to catch a plane and he's probably going to Cuba.

– Do you think the United States Are you really willing to use military force in Venezuela?

No, they know that they do not need to resort to military force because it would be a war between Venezuela and NATO. Generals calculate in terms of power, they look at how many tanks and troops the enemy has and how much I have, and depending on what they decide they negotiate. These Venezuelan soldiers know that Maduro is lost because no one supports him, so they would have a war they could not win.

For this reason, they will ask themselves: are we going to die for the Maduro panzón which has no future possibility? No, but there is one condition: the army is Bolivarian and will defend national sovereignty.

Therefore, when (the Minister of Defense, Vladimir) Padrino López practically said that he accepted Washington's offer to let Maduro leave, with amnesty for the army and a negotiated transition without blood the condition is that Washington can not intervene militarily.

– But Padrino did not say that they would take Maduro's support.

– No, but if you read the whole speech when he says that the armed forces still respect human rights, the Constitution and democracy, it is clear that he stated that he there was no reason for Washington to attack because we fulfilled our institutional role.

Then he sent a message: Maduro is going away and we have negotiated a peaceful solution.

– Some people think that the humanitarian intervention is justified because of the lack of medicines, food and the migration crisis that Venezuela is currently experiencing. What do you think?

– In international law, there is no humanitarian intervention. The mandate of the United Nations Security Council only intervenes to the extent that this will not happen. The solution is to leave Maduro, set a date for democratic elections, put in place a transitional democratic government, and put in place a kind of Marshall Plan with 50,000 or 60,000 million US dollars to help the people.

The tragedy is such that everything must be rebuilt and that large quantities of food and medicine must be sent immediately, but none of this requires military intervention.

We must reach an agreement between all the forces, including China and Russia, which invest 80,000 million dollars. Perhaps under the supervision of the UN, as proposed by Mexico and Uruguay.

– What consequences do you expect in the long term from the strong involvement of the United States in Venezuela?

– We are witnessing a policy of reconquest of Latin America within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine, from the current neoconservative group that determines the policy to be followed.

White House.

The United States is losing the war for the multipolar system, do not accept that the future of humanity will be decided by them, with the European Union, China and the United States. Russia, but remains in the fiction of the American century that they can follow control things and it is impossible.

Thus, in this situation, it adopts a policy in which Latin America, with its resources, access to Antarctica, etc., is fundamental to not losing competition with China.

– The late President Chávez – as well as the successor he chose, Maduro – spoke constantly about sovereignty. However, in his badysis, he traces a scenario in which the fate of Venezuela is decided with the participation of great powers such as the United States, Russia and China. How did you get to this situation?

– Pepe Mujica, the former president of Uruguay, said that when a country has as much oil as Venezuela, ideas of self-determination and sovereignty are almost impossible to put in. convenient.

You are right. All our countries are part of vast spheres of influence and control. Russia has hers, the United States and China too. In these areas, it is the great powers that determine politics. Latin America is a pawn and Venezuela, for oil, will be a prime target of Washington's policy.

They want to prevent China and Russia, their big rivals, from controlling these important oil reserves in their backyards. This is the strategic context of everything we see in Venezuela.

– Opponents emphasize that the great involvement of the international community in Venezuela was now necessary because the Maduro government did not allow the organization of "free and fair elections" that would have solved the crisis.

– I think it's partially correct and partially wrong. The 2015 parliamentary elections, which won the opposition, were democratically acceptable. After Maduro did not want to acknowledge these results and the opposition said he was going to dismiss him, that did not help him.

Faced with this polarization, Maduro acts Machiavellian and says: "We will take advantage of all the power of the executive, we will make an alliance with the Supreme Court of Justice and we will block what the opposition has won in the legislature. "

And that they succeeded. I would say that since 2015, there is no longer a democratic environment to really measure the will of the people, because the government has obviously predetermined the results with undemocratic measures, with lies and with repression.

– How do you evaluate the role of Mexico in this Venezuelan crisis?

– Mexicans adhere to the Estrada doctrine, which governs their traditional foreign policy since the 1930s and states that a country must respect the internal affairs of another state, the self-determination of peoples.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador used this doctrine not to adhere to the Lima Group Declaration which, in my opinion, was correct. This had an effect in favor of peace because it somewhat slowed down the impulse of imposition that came from Washington via Guaidó. Because it was a recognition of the fact that not everyone was in favor of taxation.

Then the proposal with Uruguay to involve the UN in this conflict, which was to be negotiated, was a strategic solution. Only a sick mind may prefer a violent exit to a negotiated exit.

And now, I think it is possible to conduct serious and real negotiations.

– You have proposed that, in the event of a possible transition process, the state oil company Pdvsa be led by former minister Rafael Ramírez, but the Maduro government has it accused of serious bribery offenses.

– It would be necessary to see if these accusations stand up to proper judicial proceedings in court, but it is certain that they exist and that is one of the problems of Venezuela. It will be extremely difficult to find people who are not sullied by their past, whether on one side or the other.

It would take a collective leader with the technical capacity and international experience to run an organization like PDVSA and, at the same time, be subject to public scrutiny so that there can be no misappropriation of funds.

The same thing happens in the armed forces. Who will make the decisions during the transition? Because they are the guarantors of the transition. The corruption that has occurred in so many regions, first in the Fourth Republic (before the arrival of Chavez in 1998), then with Maduro and even partly with Hugo Chávez; This is a problem that will appear in the discussion but I think that there are mechanisms in a democratic climate to find solutions.

– In the event of Maduro's exit from power, to what extent will this affect the left-wing regional movement led by Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa, among others?

– This is a big crisis and a great opportunity because you are going to have to discuss the truth about this situation. Because of this disaster, states, governments and intellectuals shared the responsibility in quotation marks.

It is obvious that a government like the Cuban government has supported Maduro because it has benefited economically. As each government acts for reasons of state. This can be understood. There have also been many intellectuals who claim to be leftist who have played a harmful role, who have heavily accused. A small mafia of academics who shared these awards and who praised Maduro and a process sentenced to death.

For years, it was predictable that, without the necessary reforms, it would end badly, like that of Khadafy or Saddam Hussein. And they did not say anything because they liked being in 5 star hotels in Caracas with full payment. Now, we do not hear any more about them because they know they are complicit in the disaster that Venezuelans are going to pay.

Ángel Bermúdez (
@angelbermudez
)