Ana Esther Ceceña: “A War on Venezuela Would be a Hemispheric War”

She is among the intellectuals that continue to speak out against foreign intervention, for peace and solidarity with Venezuela.

For Ana Esther Ceceña, Venezuela today has become the focus of an international and geopolitical debate and dispute.

According to the Mexican economist, the conflict with Venezuela is not primarily about oil, “if it was only about oil, it would not only mean a war in Venezuela, but also in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.,” she said.

For Ceceña, the war that is being promoted in the Caribbean country is for total territorial control and is for the social and political domination of the population, ” so that the norms established by the dominant powers are the rules that govern all lands,” she added.

The strategy used by U.S. imperialism, the geopolitics specialist concludes, is to “enter places where there is an organizational seed, even being of different natures, it can be a favela, a revolutionary or autonomist organization, particularly in the urban world… to control the sense of collective.

“This happens everywhere because a social dynamic is imposed in a general way… of the benefits of production and development… it is more and more for a collective that is restricted, increasingly concentrated wealth and power means that most of society is alienated from that wealth, in poverty, having problems resolving its own subsistence, but also expelled from the decisions of power,” she said.

With the introduction of irregular war, societies have lost self-determination over their lives and their social logistics. “The wars of the 21st century are novel, because they are not unleashed on a large scale, they are wars that enter from below, wars that crawl, and what they do is place social ruptures in many places in order to weaken the social fabric, and the organization of society in order to make it accessible to the interests of the intervenor,” said the researcher.


For Ana Esther Ceceña, researcher and specialist in economics, if she fails to defend Venezuela, “we are giving up a continent, we are giving up Latin America, there can be no higher risk for humanity than the transcontinental discussion of that war that is being promoted by the great industrial and military power… which has its headquarters in the United States but also shares common interests with its allies.

Ceceña argued that “if there were a war in Venezuela, it would be a hemispheric war, not a delimited war”, at the same time adding that this is why it is important to advance in the defense of peace, which is a universal abstract. “If we defend peace and the right of human beings to live in peace, it does not matter if we are standing in Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, Mexico or anywhere else… defending peace in Venezuela is defending our peace everywhere else on the planet,” she said.

In order to accomplish this defense, the economist specifically proposes to strengthening the social fabric, so as not to have fractures and avoid irregular war implantation, in addition to reviving the idea that Commander Chavez launched when Colombia wanted to implement 7 U.S. military bases in its territory, the Bases of Peace.

“There is no more intelligent proposal than that, because it safeguards the possibility of not becoming in some way what we are fighting, what is dominating us, subduing us. That is to say, not to fight war with war, Chavez said at that moment, but to build peace… so that the war does not enter here” concluded Ana Esther.


Translation by Internationalist 360°