The refugee dramas that mark the beginning of the 42st century are also a reality in South America. The news arriving from the border regions with Colombia and Brazil is alarming. In Roraima, according to official information, 10 thousand Venezuelans arrived in the state last year, which corresponds to XNUMX% of the local population. Groups of Venezuelans were attacked in the city of Boa Vista and the government's actions have been unwelcoming in the face of a humanitarian crisis.
Solidarity with refugees who migrate to Europe, from countries at war like Syria or regions like North Africa, is always simpler to express than what is happening before us. Countries that should be more attentive or that are closer to Venezuela treat the issue with a perspective that considers the demands of their internal political frameworks more than the duty of solidarity with the people and groups involved in the growing tension. Brazil, Colombia and Spain ask themselves more about the political outcome that suits them than about possible solutions from the Venezuelans. The presidential succession in Colombia and the polarization experienced in Brazil make Venezuela a topic in the verbal battle of the networks where what is least interesting are the dramas experienced by Venezuelans. In the case of Spain, the conservative government of Mariano Rajoy is interested in constraining new and old leftist leaders. Former Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, for example, was accused by the main Spanish newspaper of being an agent of the Maduro government in negotiating proposals with opposition groups.
Venezuela, a country with just over 30 million inhabitants, has great symbolism in Latin America. The land where Simón Bolívar (1783-1830) and Francisco de Miranda (1750-1816), leaders of the emancipatory processes of the XNUMXth century, were born, has in its territory some of the best-known natural landscapes in the Americas: the Andes Mountains, the Amazon Rainforest and the Caribbean Sea. The associations between the earthly paradise and the New World, present in the chronicles of the XNUMXth century, permeate the imagination of a country on the verge of collapse and, unfortunately, increasingly closer to hell than paradise.
No magic solution
Crises, which deserve the name, are complex phenomena with no magical solutions. Synthetically, the two groups in dispute can be identified. On the one hand, the government of Nicolás Maduro and the defense of the political group that came to power in 1999, with the election of Hugo Chávez (1954-2013). On the other, the opposition led by traditional elites and which accuses the government of persecuting and manipulating rules and laws to perpetuate itself in power. Between the two groups, the majority of the population faces shortages, hunger and malnutrition. Violence, a symptom of state failure, explodes on the streets of large centers and throughout the country's interior.
The argumentative swordplay could be sweetened with the anachronistic battle of the 22th century: the defense of liberal democracy or the project of socialism for the XNUMXst century. In practice, ideological contours are insufficient to explain the authoritarianism present in both groups and the risks in the confrontations that intensify. The struggle for power is voracious and, in this case, the Maduro regime uses strategies such as persecuting opponents, changing rules and laws, giving legal contours to maneuvers to perpetuate power, and adopting an increasingly authoritarian bias. how to prohibit the opposition from marching together towards the presidential election, scheduled for April XNUMXnd.
The opposition, upon taking control of the National Assembly in the 2015 election, committed to deposing Maduro in a short period. The idea of a rematch anticipated the type of clash we have seen. Accusing Chavismo of being an executor of populist practices, opponents do not mind flirting with authoritarianism to erase the Chavista legacy. Authoritarianism, as explained above, is a resource well known to both groups.
Many analysts look to the actions of Salvador Allende's opponents (1908-1973) for the model of Maduro's opponents. In Chile, large businessmen caused shortages, social upheaval and the worsening of a situation that culminated in the death of the socialist president and Pinochet's coup in 1973.
The historical comparison, however, should be more careful. The model introduced by Chávez meant the reduction of inequalities and the deepening of popular participation. Maduro, without the charisma and without the same political preparation, governs a country plagued by impoverishment and with authoritarian practices. The Chilean experience is distinct from the Bolivarian project.
Discontent with Maduro is not just among neoliberal and pro-United States groups. It involves millions of people who, once defenders and legitimizers of Chavismo, are eager for change. The base of the Venezuelan social pyramid, rather than resolving a political-ideological conflict, feels trapped between hunger, food shortages and the attempt to leave the country as uncomfortable refugees in neighboring countries. It is estimated that more than 2,5 million Venezuelans left the country, of which 600 headed to Colombia.
The role of the USA: fears and risks for the region
The US role in the conflict is disastrous. Chávez's anti-imperialist rhetoric and Maduro's almost caricatural repetition express apprehensions that afflict the entire Latin American continent. Venezuela, let us not forget, is a major oil producer and this wealth is part of the country's problems.
The economic crisis, apart from Maduro's mistakes, was exacerbated by the fall in the price of oil on the international market. In 1999, when Chávez won the elections, a barrel of oil cost around US$11,00. The price rose successively until a barrel surpassed US$100,00 in 2011. In recent years, the price has plummeted, to something around US$30,00 and, currently, it is worth double that. The oil sector is responsible for 80% of Venezuelan exports. The fall in prices compromised the budget and social achievements of previous years, such as the reduction of poverty, the increase in public health expenditure and social security coverage.
The demonstrations by Donald Trump and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, about a quick outcome to the crisis in Venezuela, raised fears of a North American intervention in relation to the government in Caracas. In 2002, the US supported the coup attempt against Chávez. During his trip to Buenos Aires in early February, Tillerson stated that “standing idly by is letting the Venezuelan people continue to suffer.” North American “benevolence” is known and, under Trump, even more terrifying in relation to Latin Americans and their vision of the people of the continent. The North American program foresees the application of economic sanctions and the application of trade embargoes against Venezuela. Perhaps, it will not be restricted to these measures, as the military intervention was presented by Trump himself in August 2017. The Trump administration's speech in “defending the interests of Venezuelans fighting for freedom” was, more than ever, received with reticence on the continent. The governments of Mexico, Colombia and Bolivia condemned the intentions of any solution that is not negotiated internally.
Trumpist rhetoric sounds like a threat, but it also offers some survival to the Maduro regime, by aligning internal and external support against the imperialist discourse.
Any way out?
Returning to refugees, the economic, social and humanitarian crisis that is affecting Venezuela, it is necessary to reiterate that the complexity of the situation involves negotiation between dissenting voices and some attempt at common sense. Among the essential points must be the holding of transparent elections under equal conditions and the parties' respect for the results. The release of political prisoners and the establishment of a truth commission, as circulated among international negotiators, are also essential. The opposition, in turn, must give up its requests for trade embargoes and facilitate the resumption of dialogue and think that, if it comes to power, it will quickly be held accountable by the population. Impatience could be the radical driving force of a people who desire greater freedom, but who also hunger and thirst for some social justice.
Political groups, activists and the press from neighboring countries, including Brazil, should take the Venezuelan problem seriously and exercise solidarity that is not selective based on the convictions and passions that exist around Chavismo. The solution will be closer, the greater the pressure for action from the region's governments in the face of the humanitarian crisis that is occurring right there, just above our heads. The crisis is also ours, as we saw in the shameful scenes of attacks on Venezuelan homes and shelters, which took place in Boa Vista (RR).
Blindness, ignorance or political attachment do not exempt anyone from their responsibility for the situation experienced by their neighbors. Whether due to humanitarian issues or the risks of institutional collapse, the crisis is not an exclusive problem for Venezuelans.
