Roger Waters of Pink Floyd on Branson’s concert on the Venezuelan-Colombian border and the “humanitarian aid deliveries” of the USA:
Do we really want Venezuela to turn into another Iraq or Syria or Libya? I don’t, and neither do the Venezuelan people.
Although Latin America is not, and certainly not Venezuela, one of the priorities of German foreign policy, it suddenly entered the political headlines of the Federal Republic and foreign policy activities. Venezuela is suffering enormous economic difficulties with social upheavals and an exodus of its population through a wave of millions of refugees, with which neighbouring countries in particular have to cope.
But despite this situation, which is the result of a scuffle between US sanctions, decades of destructive action by Western political bodies, the falling price of oil, a misguided political and economic The Maduro government’s response to exclusion and an increasingly hostile attitude of Latin American neighbors has so far been of marginal interest to the EU and German foreign policy.
It was only when Trump, in a kind of impatient forward defense, launched Juan Guido as the new Venezuelan president on January 23, 2019, and created his “baby” as a capitalist savior in Venezuela and transformed it into a “savior” of the Venezuelan people, that they were able to the EU and Germany no longer “hold back”.
The long preparation Guaid’s as a key figure of the regime change in Venezuela, which is a mapped game between the exiled senator and Trump adviser Marco Rubio, ex-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence and Donald Trump, it came to an end. Consequently, as President of Venezuela, guido was immediately recognized by the United States, Canada, Israel, the OAS (Organization of American States) and Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. A number of European states followed. Russia, China, Italy, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, and a number of Latin American states refused to accept Guaidi as a legitimate president.
American actionism is not just about Venezuela, it is about the whole of Latin America. After the 20-year-long leftist governments on the continent lost power and had to make way for new right-wing regimes, the time seems to have come for the US and a part of the Western world to re-enter the continent. and to evade the growing Chinese and Russian economic influence. Trump wants to withdraw his troops from Syria and Afghanistan in an age of new great power rivalries, and threatens troop marches and military interventions in Latin America. For Venezuela, he repeatedly stressed that military intervention would also be an option.
As we know, the threat of violence is also violence, as defined by the UN. It also provides the desired effect of state terrorism, namely the spread of fear among the population, which primarily stimulates the flow of refugees.
The half-continent is to move closer to the USA in the sense of a great power hegemony. In Latin America, no medium-sized country should remain in a strategically important position on the shores of the Caribbean and the Pacific, and with the highly sought-after oil, natural gas, bauxite, coltan and gold reserves outside the US hegemony.
It’s as if Donald Trump doesn’t just want to bring his country’s rust belt back to life, but rather brushes off the rust of the Monroe doctrine. An iron belt is to be laid around the continent and the “Enterprise of the Americas” proclaimed by the United States (Zimmering 1993) of the 1990s, which was never achieved by the resistance of the left-wing Latin American governments, is to be rusted, modernized and with the help of the so-called. Lima Group (a group of Latin American right-wing governments) such as the right-wing conservative President Mauricio Macri (Argentina), Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) and Ivan Duque (Colombia) are gaining new momentum. With a combatant rich passenger like Venezuela, the “enterprise” could be accelerated and the formula “Make America Great Again” would be revived.
What is the EU’s and Germany’s state of play on this development? Together with the EU, Germany recognized the “Trump baby,” the self-proclaimed “transitional president” Juan Guido, in precipitous obedience to the US and demanded in an incredibly blatant interventionist manner the incumbent Venezuelan To call new elections within eight days of President Nicols Maduro.
This invoked Article 233 of the Constitution, which requires new elections in the event of illness or death of the President. Although the Maduro government is not recognized by various other governments, incumbent President Maduro has not died or is ill. The reference to these articles is simply wrong.
As the “Scientific Service of the Bundestag” on behalf of the Left Group stated on two times, there were “strong reasons for believing” that the recognition of Guaidó interference in internal affairs and that this conduct was “questionable under international law”. In a press conference that followed, Angela Merkel’s spokesman said that the Venezuelan constitution had not been known so well.
Even before this embarrassing announcement, Heiko Maas had said in the special session of the Bundestag on Venezuela that, in view of the immense suffering of the Venezuelan people, the only Maduro and not the Western sanctions policy, or the Decades of influence of Western states cannot be “neutral” and thus provide the moral justification for the recognition of Guaidi.
How can a state that is always perceived as serious and at least in conformity with international law, or at least wants to be perceived, allow itself such an error? Had it been hoped that the mass of politicians, and certainly not the German public, would know about Venezuela, and that we could achieve a quick end to the “chavism” hated by Germany since 1999? The “socialism of the 21st century” proclaimed by the predecessor President Hugo Chavez has always been a thorn in the side of the Federal Republic: a socialist-defining government in Venezuela determines German investments and the largest oil reserves of the Federal Republic. World! In Machiavellian manner, the Maduro government should now be removed within a very short time.
If one looks at the interests of the German economy in South America, it becomes clear that the admission of a false foreign policy argument in the action against the elected government in Venezuela and the puppet created by the USA is probably not a mere error. Was. In Venezuela, on the other hand, German companies are hoping for the post-Maduro era.
Hardly any of the big companies have left Venezuela so far and completely abandoned their business there. Finally, Guaidi plans to privatize state assets and give foreign companies access to oil. This is what really matters to the German Government and not for reasons of international law or the suffering of the Venezuelan people, because german pharmaceutical companies had been involved in the sanctions.
Only when the democratic process of the German Bundestag, which works in spite of everything, is in demand and the truth demanded, does the truth sometimes come to the public in a drip-drip. The fact that the German government and the German media are working with further misinformation is not surprising in view of this lapse. If there are no real arguments for action contrary to international law, they will be invented.
The government, together with most German media, gives the impression that the entire Venezuelan people are behind Guaidi, which is a stark opposition to reality.
It is hard to imagine that the federal government would not have known who it recognizes as president. What are the taxpayer-funded scientific services and scientific foundations worth if they do not sufficiently inform the Federal Government about political backgrounds? One example is the case of Jair Bolsonaro, the right-wing fascist president of Brazil. Although the Adenauer Foundation created a very negative personality profile about him, his government is recognized by Germany and strongly recommended by the BDI.
According to the biographical report by well-known Investigative American journalists and analysts Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen, Juan Guido is not the smart hopeful of the Venezuelan people and a trusted partner of serious governments. represented by the German government and the German media. He is one of the most violent opposition groups in Venezuela and was built for decades by the most important CADres of the United States in the sense of a “regime change”.
He studied at George Washington University in 2007, where he co-founded the Venezuelan resistance group Generation 2007, which was used in Venezuela for violent street battles. Guarimba is carrying out terrorist-like tactics in order to unsettle the population and spread fear and terror. Guaid’s “Party of the People’s Will” emerged from this movement and is known for its often cruel destabilization campaigns, especially the 2017 riots. A number of Guaidi’s associates are in prison or fleeing the country for clearly criminal offences such as murder, bodily harm and embezzlement.
The People’s Will Party was part of the opposition parties and was the president of parliament as part of a rotation process. The representative of the People’s Will Party, who was now to be declared president in rotation, resigned in favour of Juan Gaidos. The reasons for this still fall in the dark. So Guaido was never elected by the Venezuelan people. For this reason, other Venezuelan opposition parties, such as the traditional social-democratic liberal party “Accien Democratica” and the majority of oAS member states, also rejected Guaida as president. In 2018, in Washington, Colombia, and Brazil, Guaidé coordinated the mass protests during the Presidential Elections in May 2018, which proclaimed Maduro the winner.
The opposition declared the election invalid, which international opponents of Maduro are still doing to this day. But there were three other opposition candidates, apart from Maduro, and much of the opposition deliberately did not participate in the elections. The alleged illegality of Maduro’s government is based on the argument that the opposition has been excluded from the elections. The facts contradict this account. Finally, for the non-recognition of Maduro’s government, Guaidé was asked by the United States to declare himself president on January 23, 2019.
The German Government did not alone allow Juan Guido to be recognized as president from afar, but also, through its diplomatic staff, followed up with action on the ground. After a ban on leaving the country, guaidi went abroad and then returned to Venezuela in March, and the German ambassador, Daniel Kriener, went to Maiqueta airport near Caracas with diplomats from the United States, Brazil and Colombia to visit Guaida and prevent possible detention. Promptly followed Maduro’s expulsion of the ambassador for undiplomatic conduct. The friendly relationship between Kriener and Guaidi was underlined by the pictures of the reception in the National Assembly.
This further embarrassing fact of standing up for the self-proclaimed President Guaida qualifies the German government as a supporter of US regime change policies and allies of the most right-wing governments on the American continent.
Helping and cyber warfare
The German government and the German media are constantly claiming that they are on the side of “the Venezuelan people” and that Guaidi embodies it. When guaidi called for demonstrations against Maduro over the weekend of 2/03/02/2019, 10,000 people responded to this call. However, the demonstrations on Maduro’s side, which took to the streets against Guaidi, counted ten times as much as 100,000 demonstrators. Even though 10,000 demonstrators are a large number, the relationship between the two groups of supporters is extremely disproportionate and does not suggest that the entire people are behind Guaidi, as haiko Maas and the German media claim.
In ignorance, images of mass demon stations for Guiado are repeatedly shown in German propaganda, while the images of the Maduro demonstrations simply do not appear.
Here you can’t even talk about a battle of pictures, there is simply only one unrivalled. This also has its logic, otherwise another sham argument would not work.
The claim that Maduro can only hold on to the military is a general consensus among the German government and the media. The small addition “still” also tries to feed the hope that this last pillar could quickly crumble. The latest example of fake news about Venezuela is the images of the Tienditas bridge on the border with Colombia, which are supposed to prove the blocking of aid deliveries by the Maduro government. However, the bridge has never been put into operation and the pictures are from 2017.
Sometimes the producers of false images and narratives themselves become their victims and ultimately believe in their artifacts. Apparently, both the US and the EU seem surprised that Maduro is still there, that the military, with exceptions, and a large part of the population are holding on to him.
Two options are now under discussion for Western states: one is us-led military intervention, which has been threatened for the time being by means of “humanitarian aid.” The insistence on aid by the US, the EU and other states is a mockery of the US and EU sanctions policy towards Venezuela. If another country wants to supply Venezuela with the aid now promised, such as food and medicine, it will be “punished” by the US (punitive tariffs, trade fines, bank account freezes).
Maduro had repeatedly asked for aid from the UN and the International Red Cross since 2017, but the U.S. sanctions have been slow to get underway. As the situation in Venezuela worsened, aid deliveries from Russia, Cuba, China, and the Red Cross and the UN increased in early 2019.
The calculus in the “humanitarian aid” of the Maduro-hostile camp is that it is to be enforced by mobilizing the opposition and by threatening US military intervention.
The scenario in mid-February 2019 should be as follows: the aid collected on the border with Venezuela and partly supplied by the UNITED States should be supplied by the civilian population, through music (a concert, by the British billionaire Richard Branson). on the border between Colombia and Venezuela, where the “people in need” were gathered) and guaid’s call for Maduro to open its borders by 23.02. and cross the closed border.
If the Venezuelan military had intervened to defend the border, military intervention would also have been taken by the other side to “protect” the civilian population. At the same time as the shipment of aid to the Venezuelan border and the concert, special forces and military equipment of the US forces“ were relocated to the Venezuelan border.
It is a strategically planned SCENARIO of the United States, as it has so often been part of the US intervention repertoir in Latin America. The US Special Envoy for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, had used the practice of “humanitarian aid] several times in earlier times, as in 1996 in Nicaragua in support of the Contras, and was later punished for it in the US. As the International Red Cross noted, the scenario on the Venezuelan-Colombian border was direct interference in the internal affairs of another state and a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
Nevertheless, at a special session of the UN Security Council at the end of February 2019, the United States called for Venezuela to allow American “aid deliveries” into the country in a resolution that also endorsed Germany. Although us intervention intentions failed in February 2019 through the entrance gate of “humanitarian aid,” it remains available as a means of regime change or military intervention by the US.
Not only was “humanitarian aid interweaving with political goals and the threat of military intervention a violation of international law, but the scenario meant so-called.” War for the heads” and hearts.
“Humanitarian aid” and “humanitarian emergency” generally provoke broad support and empathy among the recipients of the relevant television images, both with the “people in need” and with the “helpers”. It does not reflect on backgrounds and contexts.
It had taken a month before the UN Human Rights Council could reveal the “false positives” of the US and European propaganda campaign and the Venezuelan opposition to “humanitarian aid” and “emergency.” Max Blumenthal and Anya Perampil testified at the special session of the UN Human Rights Council on 19 March 2019 that at the same time as a large number of Western governments and media were talking about the “humanitarian emergency” in Venezuela, the images were Aid from the USA circulated, the supply situation of the population in Venezuela was largely intact, firstly that the supermarkets were filled with the same offer as in New York and secondly, the poor population with cheap or free products in the poor neighbourhoods were provided by the government.
There are major shortages of supplies in Venezuela, but there is no question of a ‘humanitarian emergency’, such as faminein Africa. By the time of the Human Rights Council meeting, the border action was long gone and failed. Interest in “humanitarian aid” had already waned in the public.
But at the international level, US “humanitarian aid” for Venezuela is being kept boiled and pursued as a variant of “regime change.”
The German Foreign Minister did not mention the aid deliveries of the UN, the Red Cross, Russia, Cuba, China and the Pan-American Health Organization. When asked at the Federal Press Conference two days later why Mr Maas simply ignored these deliveries, the spokesman replied: “The foreign minister’s response stands for itself. And I see, they’ve read them.’ This is where the embarrassment of the “false positives” comes into play, as in the case of the german government’s recognition of Guaid’ and the questioning of international law compliance by the scientific service of the Bundestag. The astonishing thing is that there is no attempt to justify or disguise the false claim, but rather to make unproven claims a second time without hesitation and with a so-called one. could be associated with a preventive strike thesis.
The “humanitarian emergency” then came to an end after the so-called " “Blackout” swept across Venezuela on 07.03.2019. A power outage of more than a week paralyzed almost all transportation, production and communication, public administration, and health and education. In the hospitals, intensive care patients and premature babies died. The basic services of the population were severely affected. Several attempts to restore power have repeatedly collapsed, which has never been the case before. Chinese experts then brought the system back to work. There had been a previously completely unknown type of power cut: a “cyber war.”
Shortly after Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Mark Pompeo announced that sanctions against Venezuela should be tightened, the Guri power plant, which supplies power to 80 percent of the population, was cut off on March 7, 2019. In addition, there were explosive attacks on central switching stations and several fires in oil warehouses. The already mentioned ultra-right U.S. senator and declared Maduro opponent Marco Rubio three minutes after the power outage that the back-up generators at the Guri power plant had been attacked by a cyberattack.
The statement is testament to the insider knowledge of Trump adviser to Venezuela, Marco Rubio, and suggests that the US has tested a “cyber war” and its impact on civilians, which is a modern version of a military intervention without ground troops or without air force. The international commission of experts, which had commissioned The Maduro government to investigate the incident, confirmed a cyber attack on the back-up generators of the Guri power plant. On March 25, 2019, there were new power outages in 18 of 23 states, which in turn were defined by the Maduro government and experts as a cyberattack.
As a result, large-scale power outages were part of a daily occurrence in Venezuela. Probably the first blackout was not sufficiently effective for the “cyber warriors” and besides the variant of “humanitarian aid” “blackouts” was now played on. The profound and repetitive impairment of everyday life in Venezuela is intended to soften the door on the majority of Venezuelans for regime change.
“Cyber wars” are a modern version of warfare and state terrorism aimed at paralyzing civilians. The terrorist organization NATO has been developing its own warfare strategy for some time. In times of government crises, such attacks can lead to governments being overthrown and externally supported internal “regime changes.”
In 2017, Jens Stoltenberg, from the NATO terrorist organization, said digital weapons systems should be increasingly used as digital assault weapons. Germany, too, has potential for these attack weapons systems, which are aimed at destroying the infrastructure of the civilian population. On the question of digital offensive attack systems, compliance with international law is at issue. According to the Geneva Convention, the protection of civilians is paramount, which is why digital cyberattack weapons should be banned. At the NATO meetings, therefore, there is no public talk of “cyber wars”.
In the case of Venezuela, the hitherto unsuccessful “regime change” was supposed to take place through a super-attack on the basic services of the population.
The Guri power plant uses electronic technology that originates from the USA (CISCO) and Switzerland. In the spirit of an addictive Western development policy, the local contractors were probably initiated into the operation of the plants, but not into the building plans. Modern electronic systems can be controlled from a long distance, i.e. also disturbed or switched off. Since the Venezuelan specialists probably did not have the blueprints of the plants in Guri, they are now trying with foreign help to decipher the systems, restore the energy supply and develop protection mechanisms.
The arrival of the two Russian military aircraft in Venezuela at the end of March 2019 is likely to be related to relief efforts in the “cyber war”. However, due to the additional destruction of technical installations and oil tanks, the sustainable restoration of the plants is almost impossible. An exchange of US technology with Chinese and Russian technology is being negotiated.
In keeping with the way in which the current “cyber war” was carried out, Juan Guaidi and the US government claimed that the blackouts were, of course, the result of the “sloppiness”, incompetence and mismanagement by the current Maduro government, and that it was finally time for the Maduro resigns. This style was gratefully repeated by the German government and the German media.
All statements about a cyber war against Venezuela were dismissed as conspiracy theories and the evidence of the Chinese experts and the international commission of experts was simply concealed. If the logic of the evidence of the international “commission of experts” were to be followed, one would have to admit the actions of the United States, which is contrary to international law, and its own errors or support for this action. However, the Red Cross aid deliveries, which Maduro has repeatedly requested and finally negotiated on the ground with the head of the Red Cross, have been misled as a defeat for the Venezuelan government.
“Today is a day of success for all Venezuelans and a great defeat for the usurper,” said Juan Guido to the address of the head of state, Nicols Maduro. “Humanitarian aid has arrived because we have all fought like a united people. Now we need to make sure that it gets to those who need it most and is not abused for blackmail.”
Despite all the problems, it is clear to a large number of people in Venezuela what is at stake for them in a regime change. Neighbouring Brazil has demonstrated it impressively. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan population has adapted to the blackouts and has developed measures to prevent them from taking precautions. The government, too, has activated and expanded its emergency services programs in a very short space of time to develop countermeasures.
The second option, following the failure of the “regime change” in Venezuela to resolve the existing crisis, is to respond to the negotiating offer from Mexico and Uruguay and to work between the various political groups in Venezuela and the interested powers. to negotiate. The problem is that most Western and a number of Latin American states do not recognize Maduro and, conversely, a number of countries do not recognize Guaidi. But both camps would have to participate in the negotiations and be recognized as legitimate by the other negotiators.
However, the preparatory meeting in Montevideo, attended by representatives of eight European countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany, and representatives of five Latin American countries as the International Contact Group on Venezuela, has raised the hopes of the Organizers of the meeting of Mexico and other Latin American states shatter edifier that a peaceful and just solution could be quickly achieved through negotiations. The Joint Declaration is essentially in line with the demands of the United States and Guaid’s for immediate elections and free access to ‘aid’.
Mexico and Bolivia therefore rejected the statement. So far, it looks like only one side of Venezuelan society is in the so-called. Montevideo process would be supported, which does not correspond to genuine, compensatory negotiations and a sustainable settlement of conflicts in the sense of the entire Venezuelan people. Both the UN Security Council and the International Red Cross opposed the use of “humanitarian aid” as a political tool. For Venezuela, the only chance to emerge from the long-prepared crisis is to turn the Montevideo process into a real balance that also reflects the real balance of power in Venezuela and non-interventionist humanitarian and through international organisations and civil solidarity actions.
However, the German Foreign Minister’s trip to Brazil, Colombia and Mexico from 29.04. to 02.05.2019 counteracts precisely these genes. Principle for fair and compensatory negotiations in the Venezuelan conflict. Instead of seeking and communicating the conversation in close geographical proximity with both sides of the Venezuelan conflict, or just getting an own picture of Venezuela, Troll Haiko Maas only talks to the right-wing South American governments and opponents of the Maduro government and meets with the Venezuelan opposition in Colombia. In response to the opposition representatives’ call for Germany to tighten sanctions on Venezuela further, Maas said that this would make sense to him, but that he would first like to consult with his European partners.
In doing so, the foreign minister again takes a unilateral position and ducks away anxiously before a meeting with Maduro and his great supporters. This is not offensive and sovereign political action, which should first move independently of the economy and great power ambitions of the United States in the sense of “multilateralism”.
In this context, it sounds like a mockery when Heiko Maas discusses common “values” such as “democracy, human rights and fair rules” together with Jair Bolsonaro, who threatens his own opposition to either end up in prison or go out of the country, and with Ivan Duque, who does not acknowledge the peace process with the FARC, speaks.
If Heiko Maas were to take “democracy, human rights and fair rules” seriously, a conversation with Nicolas Maduro would have been imperative. But he sneaks past it.
What is important for the Foreign Minister is the Latin American focus countries of German foreign policy, in which the largest economic investments of German companies exist, which follows the logic of an economic-dominated foreign policy of Germany. Of course, from the point of view of this logic, it would be desirable for Venezuela to also serve as the economic policy focus of German foreign policy, but one prefers to wait for “better times”.
From the point of view of pro-business foreign policy, therefore, mediation between the two fronts in Venezuela is not mutually effective, and unilateral support for the more promising candidate, Juan Guiado, is more effective. Kevin Kühnert’s criticism that capitalism has penetrated into far too many areas of life extends to South America and especially Venezuela, in whose conflict German foreign policy, caught in its profit logic, cannot act as a mediator.
The German position on the Venezuela question does not seem to adhere to the goals of “strategic autonomy” and its own “geopolitical identity” advocated by Chancellor Angela Merkel and Heiko Maas, since it follows the American creations and a Trump puppet and a representative of violent opposition policies such as Juan Guaidé unreservedly supported.
The US sanctions policy, as a very consequential cause of the suffering of the Venezuelan people, is not criticized and reinforced by its own sanctions. The legend of “humanitarian aid” is actively fuelled by the government and with its own comments and pictures by German media. If there is a military intervention or civil war through the entrance gate of “humanitarian aid” from the UNITED States to Venezuela, the German government is complicit.
Obviously, the German government does not care which discredited figure is at the head of an opposition movement and that, as allies of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, right-wing governments such as the one in Brazil under Bolsonaro in the Venezuela comes up against the calculus of its own economic advantages in the world’s oil-rich country and the avoidance of differences with world power rival the United States in the battle for spheres of influence (Huawei, Iran business). Germany distanced itself from international law in the Venezuelan conflict and is part of, or is clutching, the “rust belt” in Latin America.