13309594, Agreed on the title and first paragraph for sure.|
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Sat Jan-26-19 03:21 AM
>Maduro was corrupt from the start and now he's tanking the
>entire country with his effort to retain power.
Let's not act as though Chavez didn't get the ball rolling fast but yes Maduro has neither the charisma nor leadership capacity that Chavez did.
So, if he is the problem, why shouldn't he be removed? Installing one of his stooges will change nothing. There are no free elections by which an opposition coalition member can take power. There is no chance of the Supreme Court is means to mount a successful challenge. The legislature is, effectively, all Maduro's party, and the local level is only slightly better. Maduro has done many of the things Trump toys with, for example states and cities with governors or mayors from the opposing party do not receive funding, services, etc (or it should be said that they receiver much less, which is practically nothing considering that supportive areas also get very little). He doesn't give a shit if the country rots, if his people die or if Venezuela never recovers.
As far as an alternative to intervention, the country might collapse on its own and descend into civil war. That sounds like something worth avoiding.
It's not "Venezuela's problem and we should stay out of it." Even the voices of reason and diplomacy would disagree with that assessment; they just hold out hope that negotiation can solve the problem. As we've already seen, Venezuela's problem is also very much Colombia's problem, as well as that of Ecuador, Peru, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Curacao and even countries outside the region. You have a million Venezuelans living in Colombia, a developing nation in its own right with low wages, high unemployment and shitty labor protections. So far they have weathered the storm and returned the favor from years past, but triple the number and see what happens. That's just one example.
Venezuela is on the verge of being a nation of refugees, and it's a larger, nearer country than Syria. We are talking as many inhabitants as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua combined. If we leave this to Venezuela (or we might include their allies like Russia and Bolivia), things will become untenable and extremely violent. It will take the rest of my lifetime and beyond for it to recover.
>That other guy, the one who just elected himself president,
>looks like a plant (don't know if he actually is) and is
>really just going to make things worse.
What do you mean by "a plant?" He and his family have established history in Venezuela. I do suspect there were overtures made in support of him before his declaration, otherwise he wouldn't be free and probably not breathing. You can read about him, the Vargas disaster, his leading a student protest against government censorship, etc. He put in work during the protests in 2017 and 2018 as well, plus his family was in the Venezuelan military. He did some graduate study in the U.S. as an engineer was like 10 years ago. I can't say for certain what he is about, but I am not entirely skeptical.
>Either way, the US (and other countries) need to stay out of
>it. This is Venezuela's problem and we shouldn't be tipping
>the scale either way via sanctions or clandestine operations
We're already sanctioning the fuck out of them and if we sever ties completely (direction it's headed) then inflation will be exponential, overnight. *Survival* will become unaffordable for even the upper middle class. Assassinating Maduro will just put someone equally reprehensible in charge, and of course not lead to any sort of democratic solution to the problem.
I get the repugnance here. We have stuck our dicks where they don't belong too many times to count. But this goes beyond the U.S. and its stubby, sticky fingers. This is something being embraced in South America, Europe and, significantly, Venezuela. I just hope it's a fair, multilateral effort, though that might be asking way too much.