The pressure that Washington has exerted on Venezuela has resulted in a set of political, diplomatic, economic and military variants that give shape to a roadmap to take Chavismo out of political power.
The communicational question has been present as a weapon to undermine the mandate of President Nicolás Maduro and to endorse the actions of the Trump Administration on Venezuela before public opinion.
For some years now, this platform has catalogued as unconventional war all instruments that attempt against the stability of the Republic. In these circumstances, the theatre of communications and propaganda operations acquires a strategic value, both for those inside and outside Venezuela who insist on a destitute agenda, and for Chavismo.
In the development of this plot are seen a set of recent milestones or relevant events, which had been announced by officials, spokespersons and media, in a clear role of commitment to the overthrow of President Maduro. They have been “communicational acts,” denied by sources of diverse origin within the U.S. territory itself or within the framework of the international sphere.
The assassination attempt against President Maduro
In August 2018, President Nicolás Maduro and a group of Venezuelan government officials were attacked with drones armed with explosives at a public event on Avenida Bolívar in Caracas.
At the time, the President pointed out that the investigations into the failed assassination pointed to forces on Colombian soil who, with the tolerance of the Colombian government, had coordinated remote-controlled operations from Miami with the participation of active elements of the U.S. government.
At the time, officials of the U.S. government and the Colombian government rejected the accusations and trivialized Maduro’s statements by declaring that everything had been “a setup,” that it was a “self-attack”.
The international media buried the news, swept it under the carpet and saturated the news spectrum with messages against Venezuela’s line.
However, in March of this year, CNN presented a series of videos detailing the organization of the frustrated assassination from Colombian soil with links to the network in Miami. The presentation of CNN ended up providing certain initial indications from the Venezuelan government, reinforcing hypotheses about the participation of the deputy fugitive from Venezuelan justice, Julio Borges, in these events.
On the Venezuelan economic crisis
In order to manufacture consensus in the United States on the actions against Venezuela, the White House has activated a spokesperson at the highest level who has been in charge of spreading false information, one of the most recurrent being the indication that the adversities of the Venezuelan economy have been exclusively caused by the “political and economic model” of Maduro’s government.
However, at the beginning of May 2019, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), based in the United States, presented a study detailing that in Venezuela there had been some 40,000 deaths between 2017 and 2018 as a direct result of the sanctions that Washington has applied against the Latin American nation.
The CEPR explained that these deaths represent an increase in the mortality rate in Venezuela and declared that there are some 300,000 people medically vulnerable, with a high risk of dying, if the sanctions continue to escalate as has happened so far this year.
Economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot, who conducted the study, indicated that the dismantling of Venezuelan state revenues through concrete damage to crude oil exports, as well as the freezing of financial assets due to the economic blockade, has significantly affected the Venezuelan government’s ability to meet its commitments in essential services of assistance and protection to the population.
On the repercussions of a military intervention
The United States, as well as countries in Europe and Latin America, have weighed up the possibilities of a potential military intervention in Venezuela. The media construction around this issue, according to the spokespersons of various analysts and politicians, suggests that the development of such a military confrontation would be of a “surgical” nature, without affecting the Venezuelan population.
Indeed, in Venezuela the argument has also been propagated that a military intervention “would only affect the government” in functions, thus manipulating a quota of the population to support interfering actions against Caracas.
In May of this year, however, research was published in the US media, The Boston Globe, by Niall Ferguson, Professor at Stanford University and member of the Hoover Institute, a center for the analysis of strategic defense and security issues.
According to the U.S. academic, the Pentagon has concluded that a military intervention in Venezuela would unleash a situation of internal chaos that would require U.S. military presence for at least six years, at a cost of more than 80 billion dollars.
The analysis details the proportionality of the political and military cost of an interfering “adventure” against Caracas, which, as we know, is widely rejected by all political denominations in the international community.
For Ferguson, as for many analysts, the results in the development of a war in Venezuela are unspeakable and unpredictable, and would undoubtedly generate an impact on the population through the occupation and “securing” of Venezuelan land to “pacify the country,” concludes the analyst.
On Maduro’s “weak” government
On April 30, a coup d’état took place in Venezuela, led by Juan Guaidó and Leopoldo López, who, under Washington’s auspices, had organized military insurgency operations that were never consummated and resulted in the operational and military collapse of the attempt.
After such a thunderous failure, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo embarked on a rhetoric, widely publicized in the media, to control damages. According to officials, the failed coup exposed the “weak” position of the Venezuelan government.
But contrary to the opinion of officials, U.S. media and specialists of diverse persuasions, agree that the failed operation of April 30 has only served to reaffirm the position of the Venezuelan government, thus maintaining the cohesion of the country’s political and institutional fabric.
The military sector, clearly positioned next to Maduro, has not yielded to the set of multidirectional pressures it has suffered and has not initiated an internal struggle, a clear sign that Washington’s call to depose Maduro has not been heeded, nor have the appeals made by “interim president” Juan Guaidó.
For these media and analysts, Trump’s strategy for Venezuela is failing. The Washington Post, The New York Times and the financial information agency Bloomberg have produced publications that are seriously questioning the administration’s onslaught. In fact, it is not the Venezuelan government that is staggering, according to these media, it is the U.S. government itself that is staggering from President Trump’s smallest circle.
The Washington Post recently published an analysis of Venezuela and titled it: “A frustrated Trump questions his administration’s strategy in Venezuela”. In the article, the Post highlights the behind the scenes disagreements between Trump and his Security Advisor John Bolton and State Department Chief Mike Pompeo.
Such contradictions are extremely “particular” according to Jonathan Bernstein, who wrote an article for Bloomberg along the same lines. Bernstein called the divisions between the President and his own staff in the Oval Office “rare” as a consequence of the erratic formula, which fails to achieve the expected results in Venezuela.
Translation by Internationalist 360°