Developments in Venezuela
The situation in Venezuela remains extremely tense. To be fair, the latest protest rallies were much more modest. Still, they showed that the opposition is unwilling to engage in dialogue, while the official government is ready to do so. Instead, The New York Times opened its pages to the current leader of the Venezuelan opposition with his calls to overthrow the legitimate government. He is openly inciting the Venezuelan armed forces to carry out a government coup. The fact that he uses a US newspaper to issue these calls is intriguing in itself. Anyone who ever tried to publish an op-ed piece in this US newspaper knows that this is quite challenging, but there is always a page for the right people to squeeze in their message.
We see Western sponsors publicly encourage this destructive stance by all possible means. It seems that there are no boundaries for Washington anymore, neither national, nor economic, nor moral.
Unfortunately, the threat of a large-scale military conflict is still there. The note by White House National Security Adviser John Bolton on sending 5,000 US troops to a country neighbouring Venezuela was extensively covered by the media. It provides direct evidence that all options remain on the table, including direct foreign interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country. Judging by the reaction from the government of the country mentioned in the note, this matter was not even discussed with them. At least this country commented on this situation, unlike the US officials. The international community cannot get the US to answer a direct question concerning what is going on with these 5,000 troops who are to be deployed or placed on combat alert in some other way in a country that neighbours Venezuela. Washington is evading this specific question. In my opinion, what this means is that all Washington’s decisions in recent years resulted from court intrigues rather than democratic procedures.
We welcome the firm resolve by regional countries not to follow in the wake of the US militarist policy. We call each and every partner of Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean to consider very seriously what the actual role is that Washington wants them to play in preparing and unleashing a scenario in the region based on using military power, as had already been the case in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. What will be the scale of the humanitarian and migration crisis if these plans are executed? If the concept that is being imposed on the world materialises at the end of the day, in a year or two you will be reporting from international conferences on saving Venezuela. Unfortunately, our forecasts on matters of this kind often come true. The international community will be looking for sponsors and donors to restore this country and its statehood, including through UN resources and in other international formats. Regional countries will be asking global powers questions like: What is there to be done? How can this fire be put out? All this will happen if the scenario backed by the US triumphs yet again today. Over the past years it has not triumphed everywhere, as you know. If this time what is being presented to the entire international community as the only option for Venezuela is implemented again, there will be immediate consequences.
We see that not everyone is ready to blindly follow the so-called recipes for settlement in Venezuela, as promoted by Washington. A considerable number of countries stand firm in their commitment to independence and national sovereignty, and strictly abide by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of this country. They stand for a peaceful resolution and promoting dialogue between the legitimate government and the opposition as a way of preventing further escalation of the crisis.
The UN Security Council meeting on January 26 was telling in this respect, since it marked the failure of Washington’s attempt to convert the Security Council meeting into a rigged trial against the legitimate government of Nicolas Maduro. It is worth noting the position adopted by participating countries that are part of the Non-Alignment Movement. They made it clear that interference into Venezuela’s domestic affairs was unacceptable.
Examples of a balanced approach of this kind include the joint declaration by the heads of government of the CARICOM member states adopted on January 25, as well as the January 28 statement by the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (PARLATINO) published on its official website, and the joint initiative by Mexico and Uruguay on the need for all forces within the country to engage in a dialogue.
Despite the questionable ultimatums put forward by some European countries, the rejection by the EU of the infamous Monroe Doctrine is apparent. The US administration has been very vocal lately about resuscitating this doctrine. All reasonable political forces understand very well that a broad dialogue within the Venezuelan society is the only way out of the crisis. As far as Russia is concerned, we are ready to contribute to the mediation efforts or offer advice for overcoming the crisis. We welcome the fact the President of Venezuela is ready to engage in such a dialogue.
Let me say a few words about a new package of US sanctions as yet another part of the plan by the White House to bring about a government coup in Venezuela. It could be that the effect from these sanctions will be felt far beyond the Venezuelan borders. We urge the international community and especially Latin American and Caribbean countries to be mindful of the possible consequences of this move. This is not just an act of intimidation against the free people of Venezuela who have chosen their own path of development and faced political and economic aggression for doing so. We often hear about the country’s performance, including economic, financial and social statistics, while invariably failing to mention the external impact on this country and where it comes from. This has a direct bearing on the country’s economy, among other things. If adopted, the proposed package will be a direct path to a catastrophe, including an environmental disaster that could cause irreparable harm to the people in other regional countries and their development.
You can ask experts what will happen if downstream operations are brought to a sudden stop, whether this is possible or not, what needs to be done to carry out this plan and what will be the consequences? Very soon oil that Washington does not want anyone to buy from the Maduro government could just begin spilling into the sea. Has anyone asked this question? Did anyone come up with any technological options? While pursuing its political objectives and momentary ambitions, Washington has been unable to take into consideration even the most basic consequences that are obvious to anyone more or less aware of how petrochemicals are made. All this appears to be a large-scale sabotage effort that covers not only the political dimension but is also damaging for international relations and, in particular, has direct environmental consequences for an entire region.
It has to be said that the “voices of reason” are increasingly making themselves heard even in the United States. The Washington Post quotes Rohit Khanna, a Democratic Congressman from California, who said that the White House policy on Venezuela shows that there is no respect for the UN Charter. I am aware of the fact that the publication of articles of this kind is underpinned, among other things, by domestic politics in the US. But maybe this time the opponents should be heard?
We call on all reasonable forces both within and outside Venezuela to use their efforts to promote de-escalation in this country.
Question: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro recently said that there is an assassination plot against him and if he gets killed US President Donald Trump will be to blame. What is Russia’s reaction?
Is there a possibility of international mediation support to resolve the crisis in Venezuela?
Maria Zakharova: Today I spoke about Russia’s ability and intention to participate as a consultant and intermediary in the dialogue between the opposing domestic political actors in Venezuela. Russia can only play this role if both parties agree to it.
As concerns our stance that it is unacceptable to not only interfere with but, at this point, to moderate the internal Venezuelan crisis and coup, we have been making very active efforts in this regard at the international platform of the UN Security Council and in bilateral contacts. These efforts will be continued very soon.
We are also very positive about the regional countries’ attempts to help resolve the situation, attempts to develop an analytical basis and provide assistance to Venezuela on behalf of regional actors who are acting not under Washington’s pressure but understand that they will be the first to reap the outcome of the Venezuelan crisis and nobody will help them find a way out of their own problems. We see examples in the Middle East and North Africa. It is all the same. It started with the so-called Arab Spring, “fighting for democracy” and helping the population to “gain freedom” – and ended with many years of stubbornly searching for the answer: what to do with Libya, for example? And it is not so much Libya that is searching for this answer and even not its neighbours as it is Italy that has been holding conference after conference and raising the issue at all international platforms. This experience is not two hundred but only a few years old. It has not been a decade since the situation in Libya unfolded when they were looking for democracy there and trying to bring freedom back to the people. Eventually, both democracy and freedom were taken away from them. Now the Libyans have nothing but misery and a lack of prospects for the future.
Regarding Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s statement about his fears for his own safety, what else could it be if representatives of US security services have officially and directly stated that he must be ousted and they do not recognise him as the president of Venezuela and do not recognise his immunity, status and decisions. People are being sent an unambiguous signal that he is no longer the president of the country. And since he is not the president he has nothing, no immunity and no security. How else can this be interpreted?
Moreover, we can see that Washington is staking almost everything to force through its own solution to the Venezuelan issue. Considering that the United States is not enjoying foreign policy success in other parts of the world, perhaps this is yet another attempt to distract us from the failures in other problematic areas.
Let me remind you that the United States promised to achieve a lot in the Middle East. We are still waiting for the “deal of the century” which nobody understands or knows about. We are still waiting for the promised “total defeat” of ISIS, promised global solutions, for example, to the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Nothing globally positive is happening anywhere.
Perhaps the situation is similar to what happened in Cuba when a huge contingent of American businesses under former US President Barack Obama’s flags landed in Cuba and a great number of agreements were drafted (to solve, among others, the “Cuban problem”) – in order for the United States to score foreign policy points for its irreplaceable efforts in the international arena. And then everything turned out to be bluffing and deceit. Maybe this is something similar and we really do not want this situation to repeat itself.
Question: What actions does the Foreign Ministry plan to take to officially support Nicolas Maduro, as part of its functions?
Maria Zakharova: We have already discussed this matter. This includes support for the constitutional system of Venezuela, this state’s sovereignty, actions at international venues ranging from the UN Security Council to bilateral and multilateral contacts, as well as our statements. Believe me, this is quite a lot. We have done a lot to help Venezuela resolve this situation (which is not about a domestic standoff, but endless outside support for the opposition and efforts to aggravate a domestic crisis), so that this situation would not deteriorate as quickly as had been expected. It appears that the United States wanted long ago to change the situation in Venezuela very quickly. But for domestic resistance, but for the principled rejection of this plan by major players and powers and their resistance, the situation would have escalated in a negative direction long ago.
Question: It was mentioned here that an intra-Venezuelan dialogue, as Russia believes and as common sense advises, would be the most efficient way out of the crisis. But the opposition stubbornly refuses to participate in a dialogue. In your opinion, why are the self-proclaimed leader and the people surrounding him so categorical? Why are they not at all interested in a dialogue and openly demonstrate this position?
The Russian Foreign Ministry has already stated that it is willing to be an intermediary, but under the current circumstances a dialogue seems “highly unlikely.” Is Moscow considering alternative ways to assist in overcoming this crisis?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding why, as you said, this self-proclaimed leader is not ready for negotiations, it is because he is not self-proclaimed but “proclaimed” as such by outside powers. This endeavor is receiving full support – financial, technical, moral and political.
I would like to remind you that earlier stakes were made on another opposition leader who, for some reason, did not justify expectations. Now all the support is given to this political leader. It is all very simple: orders from abroad must be followed.
There is no doubt that Venezuela has its problems that need to be resolved. As there is no doubt that the scenario to prevent an internal consolidated dialogue is coming from outside. These are two components of a classic scheme. If you take any country – big or small, developed or developing, with long-standing traditions of democracy or a monarchy – it will have its own problems. And any problem can be resolved through an internal dialogue or stalled and kept unsolvable.
This scenario was going to be carried out in Syria, for example. As we have repeatedly said, it has been carried out in many other countries as well. This is why the leaders who were trained abroad (as was just mentioned) and who are leading the protest movement now, were banned from participating in any internal dialogue, in order to prevent any opportunity for Venezuela to overcome its own problems with its own resources.
As concerns Russia’s alternative approaches, I represent Russia’s Foreign Ministry and I offer my comments within the scope of my competence. If you have questions regarding other departments, perhaps you should address them.
We believe that the possibilities for diplomatic assistance to Venezuela in resolving a very complicated crisis (because it has drawn the attention of foreign states) have not been exhausted. As we understand it, the countries in the region share this opinion. This is exactly why several countries have declared the necessity to urgently convene an international conference.
Question: You said Russia could act as a mediator on Venezuela. A mediator must have good relations with those whom it plans to reconcile. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry have enough resources to ensure a dialogue between Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido? Is it in contact with Uruguay and Mexico as regards their proposal?
Maria Zakharova: As for the second question, this proposal was made yesterday. Diplomats will still have to discuss and specify the parameters.
As for your first question, it doesn’t matter whether we have good relations with the parties to the conflict. What matters is that one side of the conflict is banned from saying or doing anything that is aimed at a dialogue with the other side. This is the root of the problem. The leader and the representatives of the opposition are simply prohibited from conducting a domestic dialogue. In addition, as you see (we are seeing this together), many Western powers have started proclaiming the opposition leader as ostensibly the lawful head of state. If this is being done, if these countries and their leaders are publicly saying this, what domestic dialogue can we talk about? The conditions and the rules of the game that prevent the opposition leader from conducting a domestic dialogue have been created. In addition, now external circumstances are being created to make this dialogue altogether impossible.
Russia has potential and experience. Look at the Syrian crisis – communication with different representatives from the political field (let’s call it that). There are many such examples but let’s talk about Syria only. We had wonderful relations with representatives of the authorities and we maintained a very important dialogue – one of the most valuable contributions to the launch of the political process involving both the domestic Syrian opposition and the opposition abroad. Isn’t this a graphic example of Russia’s experience and ability to work on developing an internal dialogue? Meanwhile, Syria is a very complicated entity because of the variety of its political forces, as well as religious and ethnic views. Even holding exclusively political views that are different or similar in nature, political associations inside Syria and beyond sometimes occupied diametrically opposite positions. But they were eventually united. An unprecedented example of our potential in this area was the holding of a forum of different Syrian political forces in Sochi. Everyone told us it was impossible, that it would go nowhere. Why not? Everything was done, everything worked out. Here’s an example of potential for you. The point is, just like with Syria, if dialogue is prohibited and the political forces in Venezuela are motivated to separate rather than seek a domestic way out, a dialogue will certainly become impossible. But again, we have been through this in Syria.
Question: This week, there have been reports of empty Russian planes flying to Venezuela. Please comment.
Maria Zakharova: I already did while answering questions received in the normal course of business. I cannot comment on flights carried out with any other than official purposes. The only thing to say is that this has nothing to do with the evacuation of Russian diplomats, their families, Russian citizens or employees of foreign institutions or companies; I can say that for sure. But when it comes to flights, please address these questions to those who charter and direct these planes, pay for them, and so forth.
