Category Archives: sanctions

One Nobel winner to another: Why did you ask U.S. to invade Venezuela?

by Jim Hodgson

Perhaps I should be grateful to the Norwegian Nobel Committee for again putting Venezuela into the headlines with its absurd award of the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado, a woman who has never rejected violence as she sought the overthrow of successive Venezuelan governments since 1998. 

The prize came as the United States stepped up its attacks on fishing boats it alleged (without evidence) were carrying drugs from the Venezuelan coast to the United States. It came as the Trump administration ended a “quiet diplomacy” effort with President Nicolás Maduro that was led by Richard Grenell – a victory for hard-liners like Secretary of State Marco Rubio. If the United States opts for war. In the words of James B. Greenberg: “it will not be because diplomacy failed. It will be because war itself is the preferred instrument.”

And today, the New York Times reports that Trump has authorized “covert CIA action” in Venezuela. U.S. officials “have been clear, privately, that the end goal is to drive Mr. Maduro from power.” (That, by the way, is not news: it’s been the goal all along.)

I was astonished by the award, but then also by the responses. 

Most “progressive” U.S. commentators, including historian Heather Cox Richardson, celebrated Machado simply because she was not Donald Trump. Likewise Occupy Democrats, The Other 98%, and U.S. Democratic Socialists: one of them (I forget which) erred in saying she was Colombian. 

Even World Council of Churches and Pax Christi congratulated her. Made me wonder who they talk with in Latin America, where the reaction is strongly against Machado. Then I welcomed the flow of criticism in the threads that followed the WCC and Pax Christi Facebook posts. During the weekend, the WCC amended its message, and Pax Christi shared a new message (above). 

In the United States, author Greg Grandin told Democracy Now that the Nobel prize was the “opposite of peace.” 

But still: how can the Nobel committee see her together with previous Latin American winners like Rigoberta Menchu and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel who allied themselves persistently with the social movements of the poor, the workers, the Indigenous people, women?

I met Pérez Esquivel at least twice: once in Toronto and again in Buenos Aires (above left) at an economic alternatives conference in 2003. Right: the open letter to Machado.

From one Nobel peace prize winner to another

Let’s hear from Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel peace prize winner in 1980 for his non-violent defense of democracy and human rights in the face of Latin America’s military dictatorships, especially the regime of Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina. He published an open letter to Machado on Oct. 13 in the Buenos Aires daily, Página 12. The text is partly translated to English here, source of the following excerpts:

“In 1980, the Nobel Committee granted me the Nobel Peace Prize; 45 years have passed and we continue serving the poorest, alongside Latin American peoples. I accepted that high distinction in their name — not for the prize itself, but for the commitment to shared struggles and hopes to build a new dawn. Peace is built day by day, and we must be coherent between what we say and what we do,” he asserted.

“At 94, I am still a learner of life, and your social and political stance worries me. So I am sending you these reflections,” he emphasized.

In the letter, he argued that the Venezuelan government, led by President Nicolás Maduro, “is a democracy with lights and shadows,” and he underscored the role of former president Hugo Chávez, who, he said, set a path of freedom and sovereignty for the people and fought for continental unity.

“It was an awakening of the Patria Grande,“ he emphasized.

At the same time, he asserted that the United States has not only “attacked” Venezuela but also refuses to allow any country in the region to step outside its orbit and colonial dependence, treating Latin America as its “backyard.” He also highlighted the more than 60-year blockade against Cuba, which he called an attack on the freedom and rights of peoples.

In one of the letter’s toughest passages addressed to Machado, he rebuked her for clinging to Washington even as it confronts her country.

“I am surprised by how tightly you cling to the United States: you should know it has no allies and no friends — only interests. The dictatorships imposed in Latin America were instruments of its drive for domination, and they destroyed lives and the social, cultural and political organization of peoples who fight for freedom and self-determination. Our peoples resist and struggle for the right to be free and sovereign, not a colony of the United States,” he wrote.

On that point, he said the government of Nicolás Maduro «lives under threat» from Washington and from the “blockade,” with U.S. naval forces in the Caribbean and «the danger of an invasion of your country».

“You have not said a word, or you support the interference of the great power against Venezuela. The Venezuelan people are ready to confront the threat,” he warned.

He also criticized that, after receiving the prize, the far-right leader dedicated it to U.S. President Donald Trump. “Corina, I ask you: why did you call on the United States to invade Venezuela?”

“Upon the announcement that you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, you dedicated it to Trump — an aggressor against your country — who lies and accuses Venezuela of being a narco-state,” Pérez Esquivel said. He compared that accusation to George W. Bush’s false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, used as a pretext for an invasion that looted that nation and caused “thousands of victims.”

“It troubles me that you did not dedicate the Nobel to your people but to Venezuela’s aggressor. I believe, Corina, that you must analyze and understand where you stand,” the Argentine insisted, arguing that her posture makes her “another piece of U.S. colonialism.”

“You resort to the worst when you ask the United States to invade Venezuela,” he added.

Pérez Esquivel concluded: “Now you have the chance to work for your people and build peace — not provoke greater violence. One evil is not resolved with a greater evil; we would only have two evils and never a solution to the conflict. Open your mind and your heart to dialogue and to meeting your people; empty the jug of violence and build the peace and unity of your people so that the light of freedom and equality can enter.”

Gunboats follow sanctions in U.S. strategy for regime change in Venezuela

by Jim Hodgson

U.S. claims to have bombed a supposed “drug vessel” in the southern Caribbean were met with considerable scepticism and calls for action to stop an invasion.

Action suggestion from the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ): Please send an email to UN Secretary General António Guterres asking him to intervene to stop a possible U.S. invasion of Venezuela.

“Earlier this morning [Tuesday], on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility,” President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post. “The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action.”

He added that TdA is a “foreign terrorist organization” that operates under the control of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s president.

Mexico’s La Jornada shared Images of the U.S. boat attack

Neither Trump nor the video showed any proof that the boat was carrying drugs, nor that it came from Venezuela, nor that it had anything to do with TdA, much less that its destination was the United States. There is no indication of who the crew was. Why would 11 people be on a small boat that is supposedly carrying a large amount of drugs? Could they have been migrants? Human traffickers? It’s more common that such craft are stopped and searched. If anything is found, arrests follow. Not summary executions.

On social media, Venezuelan news outlet Venezuelanalysis speculated on how U.S. SOUTHCOM knew the small boat was carrying drugs without carrying out an inspection. On Monday, President Maduro said his country was at “maximum preparedness” and denounced the expanded U.S. military presence in the Caribbean as, “an extravagant, unjustifiable, immoral and absolutely criminal and bloody threat.”

In Colombia, President Gustavo Petro said he doubted the veracity of the U.S. claim. “We have spent decades capturing civilians who transport drugs without killing them.”

In Mexico, where Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio arrived Monday night, news of the attack was felt to be a warning to President Claudia Sheinbaum about methods the United States might use in its effort to dismantle Mexican cartels.

In previous weeks, the United States had deployed as many as eight warships, a nuclear-powered submarine and 4,500 troops as part of Trump’s anti-drug cartel operation, projecting military force into the Caribbean Sea. Among useful news analyses: The Cradle (left, a publication usually focused on events in West Asia). Newsweek (right), unusual among mainstream U.S. media is sharing multiple articles about a new “Trump Doctrine.” It’s similar in effect to the Monroe Doctrine, ostensibly about curbing European influence in the Americas, but used to justify U.S. interference in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1823.

In March, Trump used the Tren de Aragua myth as a justification to justify the extraordinary rendition of young Venezuelan men to El Salvador. A New York Times article in April showed that Tren de Aragua is not invading the United States. Nor is it a “terrorist organization,” and to call such “criminal groups terrorist is always a stretch since they usually do not aim at changing government policy.” The article goes on to show that Tren de Aragua is not centrally organized, much less that it colludes with the Maduro government. 

Maduro said in March that TdA “no longer exists; we defeated it.” The Venezuelans held in El Salvador were finally returned home in July.

Left: Chevron is once again moving Venezuelan oil to the United States. Right: President Nicolás Maduro speaks with foreign reporters.

This new chapter in Venezuela’s drama plays out in the context of historic U.S. refusal to accept the development in this hemisphere of a political and economic model other than the capitalist one. Since 1998, Venezuela has embarked upon a “Bolivarian Revolution” (named for Simon Bolivar, the hero of the 19thcentury independence struggle) and intended to break capitalist hegemony over every aspect of the lives of the people.

Since 2005, U.S. administrations have made the annual determination that Venezuela has “failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international narcotics agreements.” A year later, the United States began applying sanctions (“unilateral coercive measures,” the UN calls them). These and other measures have been strengthened since 2015, eventually driving a severe economic crisis and exodus of millions of people who sought better opportunities elsewhere.

In this second Trump administration, some see incoherence. On the one hand, ongoing verbal threats and this military build-up. On the other, easing of sanctions to allow Chevron to import Venezuelan oil to the United States. Conjecture persists about the relative influence of corporations like Chevron that want back in, the south Florida Venezuelans and Cubans who are Rubio’s constituency, and the isolationist sector of the Trump-MAGA base that wants out of all foreign wars.

“Aggressive” U.S. policy tightens the screws on Cuba’s people 

The White House has a new document on Cuba. To those of us who have been watching for a while, it seems more acute: it tightens the screws on a people already suffering severe effects—shortages of power, food, and medicine—provoked by the U.S. blockade.

Esteban Lazo, president of Cuba’s National People’s Power Assembly, called the statement aggressive and unjust.

The statement talks about freedom for the people, democracy, respect for human rights and human dignity, and protection for dissidents and “peaceful demonstrators.” But it also tightens restrictions on U.S. citizens who travel to Cuba. Academic travellers must “engage in a full-time program of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, improve civil society, and promote the independence of the people from the authorities.”

It limits how Cubans might seek asylum in the United States and how family members send money back home. It gives U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a second-generation Cuban-American) the power to identify any entity under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of Cuban companies, as well as to regulate their financial transactions.

It also specifies that that the Trump administration will oppose petitions before the United Nations and other international forums that demand the lifting of the embargo.

There’s a new list of “prohibited officials,” including ministers, deputy minister, members or employees of Cuba’s Parliament and Supreme Court and even the editors of Cuban state media organizations.

“Who are they trying to deceive?” ask the editors of Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, in a front-page article today. “All this has been suffered by the Cuban people for more than 60 years.”

In social media posts June 30, President Miguel Díaz-Canel said that the new U.S. policy statement “responds to narrow interests that are not representative of the majority in that country, and further reinforces the economic blockade.” The goal, he added, is to cause the greatest harm and suffering to the Cuban people. “The impact will be felt, but we will not be defeated.”

Two weeks earlier, Cuba’s Catholic bishops recognized the critical situation faced by the Cuban people. In a Message for the Jubilee Year, they described: “the avid search for essential goods, the prolonged lack of electricity, the growing emigration, the disillusion, the apathy due to the repetition of promises that never come to fruition… the sadness.” Among the victims of the crisis are: “the elderly, who are alone and abandoned… those who feel they can’t freely express their convictions,” as well as those who are living on the streets, eating from the garbage bins, suffering from addictions. “They’re resentful or broken, and becoming ever more violent… lacking love, and empty of hope.” They comprise an “uncertain future,” and not only in Cuba, but also for the world.

The bishops called on “everyone, but primarily those who hold higher responsibilities” to “create a climate without pressures nor internal or external restrictions” for the “changes that Cuba needs.” The use of “external” refers to the blockade and other measures of the U.S. government; the “internal” to the political actions of the Cuban government.

Trump and Rubio use sanctions and other measures to try to force regime change. They pay no heed to the needs of the Cuban people, but churches, unions and non-governmental organizations around the world continue to press for an end to the blockade and for increased humanitarian aid.