<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<h1 class="title">But What About the Oil? US Senators Get to the
Heart of the Matter in Wake of Venezuela Sanctions</h1>
<div class="submitted">
<p class="byline"> By <span class="author">Rachael Boothroyd</span>,
<span class="date">March 24th 2015<br>
<b><small><small><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11289">http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11289</a></small></small></b><br>
</span> </p>
</div>
<p>Last week, lawyer and journalist Glen Greenwald acerbically asked
if there was “anyone, anywhere, that wants to defend the
reasonability” of Obama’s claim that Venezuela is an
“extraordinary threat” to U.S. security. On Tuesday at a Senate
Foreign Relations Hearing on Venezuela, a band of rightwing “human
rights” specialists including US senator Marco Rubio decided to
make a Herculean attempt. <br>
<br>
Entitled “Deepening Political and Economic Crisis in Venezuela:
Implications for U.S. Interests and the Western Hemisphere”, the
hearing revealed little about Venezuela. The usual baseless claims
regarding alleged human rights abuses, Venezuela’s “links” to
Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC),
as well as an “invasion” headed by the Castro brothers which has
seen “Cubans crawling” all over Venezuela (thanks to Senator
Rubio) were all trotted out. The usual thoroughly discredited
“sources of evidence” were also cited. <br>
<br>
As expected, murdered FARC commander Raul Reyes’ dud computer
records, discovered (and not tampered with, obviously) by
Colombia’s honourable military forces in the jungle raised their
head once more, and we even had anecdotes that were astutely
ferreted out of unsuspecting mystery Cubans at charming dinner
party encounters by Dr. Christopher Sabatini subsequently
submitted as testimony to Castro’s vice-like grip over Venezuelan
politics. <br>
<br>
What the hearing did reveal, however, aside from Senator Rubio’s
lack of regular interaction with reality, is that U.S.
intervention in Venezuela looks set to intensify over the coming
year and will be implemented through a variety of mechanisms.
Chiefly; further “targeted” sanctions against Venezuelan
officials, more funding for Venezuelan opposition groups and NGOs,
destabilisation of Venezuela’s economy, specifically its oil
industry, an international media campaign against the country
aimed at constructing a matrix of opinion surrounding human rights
abuses and through further efforts to weaken Latin American
integration and unity. <br>
<br>
Firstly, let’s begin with the impressive curriculum vitae of our
band of merry expert witnesses, invited to present their
“evidence” and give their opinion to the Senate. <br>
<br>
<em>Alex Lee</em><br>
Deputy Assistant Secretary for South America and Cuba.<br>
<br>
Lee has substantial blood on his hands, having intensified the
U.S. “War on Drugs” in both Colombia and Mexico. He was directly
responsible for the Merida Initiative in Mexico, implemented
during the disastrous presidency of Felipe Calderon, leading to
the increased militarisation of the country and contributing the
bloody situation it is living today. He also helped create Plan
Colombia, further blurring the already sketchy line between
Colombian state authorities and paramilitaries, resulting in the
murder of thousands, mass graves filled with “false positives” and
the aerial spraying of poor rural workers’ homes and land with
countless damaging consequences for their health. <br>
<br>
<em>Mr. John Smith</em><br>
Acting Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)<br>
<br>
OFAC is tasked with implementing sanctions against “targeted
foreign states, regimes, terrorists and their financial
supporters, international narcotics traffickers, transnational
criminal organizations, and weapons of mass destruction
proliferators.” Smith has worked at this office since 2007 and
thus throughout the Obama administration’s sanctions on Syria,
Libya, Iran and Russia. Smith also served as an expert to the
United Nations’ Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee from 2004
to 2007.<br>
<br>
<em>Mr. Douglas Farah</em><br>
President at IBI Consultants<br>
<br>
President of IBI Consultants, a Senior Fellow at the International
Assessment and Strategy Center and former journalist. As the
Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) pointed out, Farah’s
presence as a witness “signals that the committee is not
especially interested in facts. Farah has written and testified
about supposed links between Venezuela, Iranian weapons,
Hezbollah, the FARC and "terrorism" in general, without evidence,
for years.”<br>
<br>
<em>Mr. Santiago Canton</em><br>
Executive Director of Partners for Human Rights<br>
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights<br>
<br>
Former Executive Secretary for the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights for the Organization of American States (OAS). In
2002 Canton sent a letter recognising the defacto and
unconstitutional government of Pedro Carmona, which briefly came
to power in Venezuela via a short-lived coup against then
President, Hugo Chavez. <br>
<br>
<em>Dr. Christopher Sabatini</em><br>
Adjunct Professor at School of International and Public Affairs at
Columbia University<br>
<br>
Sabatini was Director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) between 1997 and 2005. He
has also served as an advisor for the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). Both of these U.S. agencies
have a longstanding history of funding anti-government groups and
NGOs in Venezuela which has been well documented by authors such
as U.S. attorney Eva Golinger. <br>
<br>
<strong>Sanctions: Less is more?</strong> <br>
<br>
One of the hottest topics at the hearing was the third set of
“targeted” sanctions recently imposed by President Barack Obama
against selected Venezuelan officials. To pass the sanctions
without Congressional approval, Obama invoked the IEEPA
(International Emergency Economic Powers Act) and declared a
national emergency…a designation which even Christopher Sabatini
conceded may have been “a little overblown”. <br>
<br>
From the exchanges which took place, there can be no doubt that
further action is already being set in motion. The ink has barely
settled on Obama’s farcical declaration, and yet many senators at
Tuesday´s hearing were already chomping at the bit to get a fourth
round of sanctions penned up. There was less consensus, however,
around what kind of sanctions to implement. Targeted or sectorial
sanctions? Or should we just go the whole hog and slap a veto on
Venezuelan oil? <br>
<br>
With the glee of a kid in a sweet shop, Senator Rubio beseeched
those present to identify further “human rights abusers’ in
Venezuela in order to open up more possibilities of “who to
sanction”. <br>
<br>
Equally partial to the enactment of further sanctions was Senator
Menendez, who called for Venezuelan Defence Minister Padrino
Lopez, and Venezuelan Ambassador to the U.N., Rafael Ramirez, to
be added to the next list. As well as a whole host of others. <br>
<br>
“Do you agree that… the parameters set forth in our legislation
and their expansion under the president’s executive order leave
many other Venezuelan officials eligible to sanctions?” Menendez
asked Andrew Lee, who answered in the positive. <br>
<br>
Yet others at the hearing, such as CEO and Republican Senator
Perdue, failed to conceal their frustration with what they clearly
consider to be the application of inadequate sanctions in an
urgent situation. <br>
<br>
“How long would we be patient, to watch the human rights
violations in Venezuela, before we stiffen those sanctions?” asked
an ominous Senator Perdue, whose preference seemed to be for
slapping Venezuela with a set of economic sanctions, such as those
which have been imposed against Russia. Up until now, Perdue
explained, U.S. pressure in all of its forms has been unsuccessful
in “steering” the Venezuelan government in the required direction
or substantially “changing its behaviour”. <br>
<br>
“We have really very little evidence around the world that
sanctions against individuals have ever really changed behaviour.
So again, I think it’s more a question now, let’s see how long
it’s gonna take. My question is, what’s a reasonable expectation
on our part of these sanctions relative to changing behaviour?”. <br>
<br>
“If we really wanted to change behaviour in Venezuela, oil is the
way to do it”<br>
<br>
Senator Perdue recommended keeping world oil prices low through
flooding the market with US shale oil, and the expansion of
“critical” projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.<br>
<br>
According to the senator, projects such as Keystone will be vital
for reducing U.S. “dependence on oil from bad actors such as
Venezuela”. <br>
<br>
Secondly, and borrowing a leaf out of Vice-president Biden’s book,
Perdue drew particular attention to the fact that Venezuelan oil
initiatives in the region such as Petrocaribe are a point of
weakness for Venezuela (and thus a possible target), and finally
even suggested that it would be advisable to cease Venezuelan oil
imports to the U.S.<br>
“It seems quite hypocritical to me to limit what others are doing
in Venezuela while we are quite happy to keep importing 30 billion
dollars of oil each year… Mr Smith, what do you believe would be
the impact if we were really to get serious about changing
behaviour in Venezuela, to go after the oil? Which would mean that
we would have to pay a price too”.<br>
<br>
Of course, the next time Maduro states that falling oil prices are
the result of U.S. geopolitical strategy to unseat his government,
the press will doubtlessly suffer a bout of amnesia surrounding
these comments.<br>
<br>
Despite the pressure from Perdue, however, Lee confirmed that at
the present moment the State Department prefers to deal out
sanctions to specific individuals with one hand while it continues
to aid and abet Venezuelan opposition movements with the other. <br>
<br>
“We have made, after consulting with a variety of civil society
actors and political actors in Venezuela, we have made the
decision that it really advances US interests not to use sectoral
sanctions in Venezuela.”<br>
<br>
One might wonder how such an essential part of the United States’
moral crusade, applied with such categorical success in Iraq,
Libya, Syria and the Ukraine, could be counter-intuitive to U.S.
interests. However, as Senator Kaine pointed out, it wouldn’t
exactly be ideal if Venezuelans were to think “Oh look, we’re just
having problems because the US is doing bad things”.<br>
<br>
In spite of the significant and ever-present pressure from
hardcore Republicans to slap Venezuela with sectoral sanctions and
“go after its oil,” Washington appears to be pinning its hopes
for now on engineering a “favourable” outcome at this year’s
upcoming legislative elections, using it’s tried and tested
“democracy promotion” techniques as opposed to a visibly
aggressive foreign policy. <br>
<br>
“We think that if Venezuela is to stop this downward slide, it is
basically through more democracy and the best way to express that
is to uphold elections that are seen as credible,” explained Lee.
<br>
<br>
Given that the U.S. incursion into the Ukraine hasn’t gone
entirely to plan, it would seem that replacing those 30 billion
dollars worth of oil imports would present a problem that the
White House isn’t quite ready to deal with just yet. <br>
<br>
<strong>Ensuring a “credible” outcome in the upcoming
parliamentary elections</strong><br>
<br>
While Lee didn’t give specific details as to what would constitute
acceptable elections, he did admit that “credible elections
results could reduce tensions in Venezuela,” and his department
has “urged regional partners to encourage Venezuela to accept a
robust international electoral observation mission, using accepted
international standards”. <br>
<br>
One can only assume then that credible election results translate
to extensive U.S. presence during the electoral process, as well
as a majority win for the opposition.<br>
<br>
This puts Venezuelans in a tricky position that no doubt
Nicaraguans over the age of 40 can empathise with - a choice
between continued U.S. aggression or a lurch to the right, with a
majority opposition in the National Assembly moving to block any
progressive legislation. <br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the current administration as well a number of
senators consider these elections to be a “critical” opportunity
to “gain seats in the National Assembly” in order to have the
“opposition put pressure on the Maduro government” (Senator
Barbara Boxer). <br>
<br>
If we combine this reality with current polls in Venezuela, which
show a majority intention to vote for the ruling PSUV party, then
we can see that U.S. “civil society and political actor” allies
will probably require a little nudge in the right direction if the
U.S. is to gain the desired results. Fortunately, the Obama
administration approved an increase in funding for such groups
earlier this year, and as such, U.S. democracy promotion agencies
are free to nudge away without impediment. <br>
<br>
If history is anything to go by, and it usually is, then the
majority of these funds will end up in the pockets of opposition
NGOs and youth groups (this has a dubious legal basis, given the
fact that Venezuelan political parties are prohibited from receive
funding from abroad), with the rest somehow finding its way into
the hands of the violent armed groups which headed last year’s
barricades and which just last week attempted to fire bomb one of
the government’s state universities in Tachira. <br>
<br>
Of course, the political opposition groups which receive U.S.
funding wholeheartedly deny any connection to “anti-democratic”
groups. <br>
<br>
As such, the financing for the firearms, wages and sponsored
Facebook pages being used by political saboteurs and fascists in
Venezuela continues to be a total mystery. In much the same way as
it is in the Ukraine. <br>
<br>
<strong>The Elephant in the Room: “Are we talking to our friends
in the region?”</strong><br>
<br>
Further on into the hearing, Senator Boxer astutely decided to
point out the elephant in the room: that U.S. actions towards
Venezuela had been met with “widespread criticism” by regional
actors. A reaction which she described as “very upsetting for a
lot of us” and which is currently presenting a critical obstacle
to Washington’s attempts to destabilise Venezuela. <br>
<br>
“What steps are we taking to engage with Latin American nations
about the recently announced sanctions. Have any countries in the
region expressed support for our action?” Boxer asked. <br>
<br>
Evidently, the reasons behind Washington's extensive ostracism on
the continent have suffered a considerable time delay in arriving
to U.S. shores. Rather than acknowledging a history of
imperialism, bloody coups and neo-colonialism, (the longstanding
tradition of non-intervention that White House spokesperson, Jen
Psaki, appears to be so proudly referring to here), Boxer seemed
to have decided that the plebs to the South of the border just
can’t seem to get that the White House is doing this for their own
good! Diplomacy certainly can be frustrating. <br>
<br>
“What are we doing to make sure they understand that what we did
was the right thing, the moral thing, the correct thing, for the
people of Venezuela?” she implored with a desperation that was
only assuaged when Alex Lee did in fact confirm that the U.S. was
working with friends and allies in the region. <br>
<br>
While discretion prevented Mr. Lee from detailing exactly what
activities are currently taking place backstage in order to
instill Latin American governments with levels of comprehension
comparable to those of the U.S., he did confirm that the current
administration had made this work a priority. The only snag is
that, thanks to the region’s transformed political climate, it now
has to be carried out by proxy. No longer recognised as a main
political player in the region, Lee stated that the U.S. is now
working “indirectly through other countries”. Where there’s a
will, there’s a way!<br>
<br>
<strong>Human Rights and Government “Accountability”</strong><br>
<br>
Putting to one side the truly galling levels of hypocrisy which
characterizes U.S. foreign policy, there is a reason why these
targeted sanctions should worry those who are interested in
defending the Bolivarian revolution. <br>
<br>
These individual sanctions might not have the same implications
for the Venezuelan people as sectoral sanctions, but they are
certainly not pointless. The U.S. has a long term game plan aimed
at creating the conditions for the removal of the Venezuelan
government and intervention by proxy in the region. However, the
White House is also conscious of the challenges to its own
hegemony which have emerged from the construction of a growing
alternative model in Latin America, which must be disarticulated
at all costs. Which means it’s not as simple as overthrowing the
Maduro administration. <br>
<br>
It is this which partly explains why the U.S. is choosing to focus
on building a discourse around human rights violations and the
delegitimisation of democracy in Venezuela for consumption in the
West, where a history of colonialism and imperialism presents few
obstacles to the establishment of such a narrative. These
“individual” sanctions, despite their disappointing lack of teeth
for those at the hearing, are vital for constructing this
international matrix of opinion and for manufacturing consent to
justify any kind of present and future action against Venezuela.<br>
<br>
They also have material repercussions: the global remit of human
rights abuses provides an international legal framework which
allows current Venezuelan government officials to be pursued at
international courts in the event of the unconstitutional
overthrow of the Maduro administration. <br>
<br>
Senator Rubio spelled it out most clearly: defy the U.S. and
expect to spend decades languishing in an international prison on
the orders of the Hague. <br>
<br>
“One day we’re gonna have freedom in Venezuela, there will be a
functional government again… and these individuals responsible for
the human rights abuses are going to have to be accountable for
what they're doing. That´s why it’s so critical that these human
rights abuses be documented now, so in the future these
individuals will be held to account for the crimes they are
committing against the people of Venezuela”. <br>
<br>
Rubio’s assertion was of course accompanied by a vehement denial
that the U.S. is working to effect regime change in Venezuela.
Rather, those on the heroic panel were simply “raising their
voices” on behalf of the Venezuelan people.<br>
<br>
We could of course just dismiss these voices as the ramblings of
paranoid cold war relics, but these are the voices which the Obama
administration has been listening to far more than those emerging
from Latin America. It was, after all, rightwing hardliner and
anti-Castro Senator par excellence Rubio who designated the latest
7 Venezuelan officials to be targeted for sanctions. <br>
<br>
It’s not surprising given that Rubio’s stance coincides much more
harmoniously with White House interests than those in Latin
America. In Venezuela, for instance, 62% of citizens think that
the U.S. shouldn´t even be able to pass judgment on Venezuelan
affairs, while 92% reject any kind of intervention in the country.
<br>
<br>
Senator Boxer can bemoan the lack of regional support for US
actions, but dialogue begins with respect for plurality of
opinion, sovereignty and agency, which are impossible within the
asymmetrical power relations perpetuated through imperialism and
neo-colonialism. These are the qualities which have made the
regional organisations spearheaded by Chavez so successful, and
why they have managed to bring even rightwing governments in the
region into the fold. <br>
<br>
The U.S. quest for dominance is destined to further isolate it in
the region as it continues to attempt to impose its worldview and
geopolitical interests on Latin American countries, which have
experienced a growing anti-imperialist movement over the past 15
years. <br>
<br>
In order for the current U.S. strategy to bear fruit in Venezuela,
it requires a sudden upsurge of support for the right, the
disarticulation of a whole anti-imperialist and participative
political discourse and practice in the region, as well as the
erosion of regional institutional mechanisms such as the CELAC and
UNASUR which now enjoy more legitimacy on the continent that the
OAS, World Bank, and IMF combined. <br>
<br>
When even Manuel Santos and Ernesto Samper are talking about
sovereignty and “new eras” in Latin America, formulating this
equation seems unlikely, although certainly not impossible. It is
doubtful that Senator Boxer will be getting a more favourable
reply to her questions any time soon.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>