<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element" dir="ltr"> <font
size="-2"><a class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14392">https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14392</a></font>
<h1 class="reader-title">Who’s to Blame for the Crisis in
Venezuela? Can It Be Solved Through Negotiations? A Response
to Gabriel Hetland and “The Nation”</h1>
<div class="credits reader-credits">By Jorge Martin - March 17,
2019</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element"
dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div>
<div>
<p>There is a certain trend of opinion amongst the
liberal left, particularly in the US, which never felt
very comfortable with the Bolivarian revolution. Now,
in the midst of a serious and well-organised attempt
by Washington to remove Maduro’s government, they
insist on equally blaming both sides for the crisis,
one which in their view can be resolved through
“negotiations between the government and the
opposition”. A chief representative of this point of
view is Gabriel Hetland, who has written several
articles on Venezuela for <em>The Nation</em>, <em>Jacobin </em>and
other left-wing publications.</p>
<p>His latest article, “<a
href="https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-blackout-us-sanctions-maduro/">Venezuela’s
Deadly Blackout Highlights the Need for a Negotiated
Resolution of the Crisis</a>”, sums up this argument
neatly, so it is useful to analyse it in some detail.
The article is full of inaccuracies and half-truths,
but its main flaw is a mistaken analysis of the
situation in Venezuela, one that avoids a class
approach to the different forces involved, from which
Hetland derives a completely utopian solution.</p>
<h2>The devil’s in the details</h2>
<p>Let’s start with some of the factual inaccuracies.
The caption of the picture illustrating the articles
reads: “People collect water from a leaking pipeline
along the Guaire River”, the same line is then used
within the article for effect. It is false. During the
blackout there was lack of water supply as a result.
People resorted to collecting water from <em>springs
coming down the Avila mountain</em>. Some of these
springs are canalised and then end up in the Guaire
River. People were <a
href="http://albaciudad.org/2019/03/es-falso-que-caraquenos-recogian-agua-del-rio-guaire-lo-hacian-de-una-tuberia-de-aguas-blancas-en-la-rivera-del-rio-videos/">collecting
water from two such springs</a> on the side of the
Guaire, <em>not</em>from a “leaking pipe”. Water pipes
were actually not carrying water. This might seem like
a small detail but it has a certain importance. The
headlines in many of the newspapers claimed people
were collecting water from <em>the Guaire river itself</em>,
which is extremely polluted (<em>El Nuevo Herald</em> in
Miami <a
href="https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/america-latina/venezuela-es/article227462309.html">said</a>:
“Desperate Venezuelans collect rotten water in the
midst of blackout”). The mass media exaggerates and
sometimes publishes straight lies in order to fit into
a narrative of “harrowing crisis in Venezuela” in
order to justify the “need for foreign intervention”
or in any case “regime change”. Hetland is not new to
this business and should know he needs to check all
the details he uses in his story.</p>
<p>Another one. In the opening paragraph of his article,
Hetland seeks to draw attention to how bad and
long-lasting the blackout was. He does mention how
“power was intermittently restored on Sunday and
Monday in parts of Caracas and elsewhere,” but then
ends the paragraph with a mention of the <em>New York
Times</em> headline: “... with <em>The New York
Times</em> on Monday publishing an article titled
“No End in Sight to Venezuela’s Blackout, Experts
Warn.””. What’s the conclusion he wants the reader to
draw? That the blackout is far from over, in fact we
don’t know when power will be restored at all. There
is just a small detail: it does not coincide with the
facts. By midnight, 11 March, <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14377">power
had been restored in Merida, Zulia and Táchira</a>,
the last remaining states affected by the blackout.
Hetland’s article carries the date of 13 March, when
the blackout was already over and there were only a
few smaller towns left affected.</p>
<p>In paragraph two, Hetland states “the most alarming
aspect of the blackout is the lack of power in
hospitals.” Of course, the lack of power in hospitals
is alarming and very dangerous. However, all hospitals
in the country have their own independent power
generators that activate in the event of an emergency.
A <a
href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0f3ae5_18e3593651044a84911214e279d6c8fa.pdf">report</a> by
the opposition-aligned NGO, <em>Médicos por la Salud</em> published
on 11 March in the evening a list of all 32 of the
country’s hospitals, with a detailed explanation of
their situation. In all of them, their own power
plants were working with the exception of one where it
was working intermittently. Heltand then adds: “To be
blunt: People are dying, and more will die the longer
the blackout continues.” To back up his assertion he
links to a <a
href="https://lta.reuters.com/articulo/idLTAKBN1QR0WW"><em>Reuters </em>report</a>,
which quotes from “Medicos por la Salud”, saying that
17 people have died as a result of problems with
electricity supply. When you then look at the NGO’s
own report the picture is less clear. In the report
about the state of hospitals, which I quoted above, of
the 32 hospitals listed, all bar two are marked as “no
deceased”, and the other two account for a total of
three people dead. In a <a
href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0f3ae5_7fe204d727f24e579dee9b538fcd391c.pdf">separate
report</a> by the same NGO about the number of
people who died during the blackout, 24 are listed but
no details are given as to the causes of death. So
these could be people who would have died regardless
of the blackout. Again, this might seem a small
detail, but details are important, because they are
what build a story. A story can be constructed in two
ways. One would say: “Hospitals dealt with the
blackout by using their own emergency generators,
which greatly minimised the dangerous impact of lack
of electricity”. The other says: “the most alarming
aspect of the blackout is the lack of power in
hospitals… To be blunt: People are dying, and more
will die”. You are more likely to write the second if
you rely largely or solely on material from <em>Reuters </em>and
other such agencies, and you are also more likely to
stray from the truth.</p>
<h2>What caused the blackout?</h2>
<p>Of course, Heltand’s article is built around the
blackout and so an explanation of the causes for it
should be given. What does he tell us about it? He
starts by saying there are two competing “narratives”,
(a word I particularly hate), but “neither” he goes
on, “ does justice to Venezuela’s reality.” In
Heltand’s opinion: “The blackout and the broader
crisis <em>are not entirely the fault of Maduro</em>,
nor of the United States and the domestic opposition.
The urgency of the situation demands recognition of
shared responsibility for the crisis.”</p>
<p>But then Hetland states that “only the most myopic
analysis could ignore the government’s clear
responsibility for the perilous state of Venezuela’s
electric grid,” and goes on to give as an example: the
scandal of the Tacoma Hydro Plant, a project that was
never finished as a result of corruption. (Even here,
he gets some facts wrong, by using a report that is
now outdated). However, the question is, how does a
non-functioning power plant relate to the current
blackout? Everyone, government and opposition, agrees
that something went wrong inside the control centre
for the El Guri Hydro complex. The dispute is about <em>what </em>caused
the fault. The opposition says it was a wildfire under
the main high power line out of El Guri, while the
government claims it was a cyber attack affecting the
SCADA system that regulates the plant, which produces
80 percent of Venezuela’s power.</p>
<p>What is Heltand’s opinion about this? He does not
say. Though he, of course, mentions the possibility of
a cyberattack (quoting an article from <em>Forbes</em>),
he does not go into any of the details and his
conclusion is clear:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Available evidence suggests that the blackout was
not caused by sabotage, but by the electric grid
being pushed to the brink by years of increased use
and a lack of investment and maintenance.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Available evidence”? Perhaps Heltand knows more than
everyone else, because so far, neither the government
nor the opposition have provided much, if any,
evidence to back up their stories. Their arguments are
mostly based on circumstantial evidence. The
opposition has not provided any evidence of the
mysterious wildfire that they say affected the 765KV
power line and then caused the El Guri system to shut
down, which should be relatively simple if such a fire
had occurred. Furthermore, Guaidó rejected the idea of
a cyber attack, as he alleged that the El Guri Hydro
complex was controlled “analogically”, something that
is a straight lie. All of these things are being
widely discussed in Venezuela, with claims and
counter-claims being made. Heltand ignores all of this
and simply claims that “available evidence suggests
that the blackout was not caused by sabotage”, without
even mentioning what is this “available evidence” he
bases himself upon, or providing any useful links as a
reference.</p>
<p>In fact, he has already decided on an explanation
that fits his “narrative” and has written a story that
ignores the available evidence. Just to cover himself,
after having declared what the cause of the blackout
is he adds: “getting to the bottom of the blackout is
important; journalists based in Venezuela should
investigate the possible causes”. Yes, Mr Hetland,
getting to the bottom of the blackout is important,
jumpìng to conclusions based on preconceived ideas
does not help. “Journalists based in Venezuela” have
already done a very good job of attempting to
establish what actually happened, and <a
href="http://www.15yultimo.com/2019/03/11/apagon-en-venezuela-superiguanas-o-cyber-ataque/">this
article in <em>15 y Último</em></a>is perhaps one of
the best efforts. It was published on 11 March, two
days before Hetland’s article was published in <em>The
Nation</em>.</p>
<h2>The “path of negotiation”</h2>
<p>However, the main problem with Heltand’s article lies
in the conclusions he draws:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Calls for military intervention must be rejected.
One must recognize, however, the untenability of the
status quo. The combination of Maduro’s repressive
and inept rule and debilitating US sanctions has
brought Venezuela to the edge of catastrophe. The
longer the situation continues, the worse things
will get.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, on one thing we can certainly agree. The
situation in Venezuela is bad and has significantly
worsened over the last four or five years.</p>
<p>But what is the “plausible path for resolving
Venezuela’s crisis” that he proposes? First of all, he
accepts the premise that a “peaceful transition” needs
to take place and this must be through “free and fair
elections”. Here we see how our liberal critic in fact
accepts all of the premises of “regime change” on
which US imperialism bases its current assault on
Venezuela. Washington too says it is for a “peaceful
transition” and above all for “free elections”. In
fact, this is precisely what, nominally, they are
trying to achieve with their policy of diplomatic
pressure, sanctions and the threat of military
intervention. Hetland therefore assumes, without
explaining why, that the presidential elections in
2018 were not free and fair and that therefore Maduro
is an illegitimate president, otherwise, why should
there be new elections when he was just sworn-in in
January? Our liberal friend finds himself firmly in
the camp of the Venezuelan opposition and US
imperialism. His disagreement with imperialism seems
to be just tactical, he does not think that this
outcome can or should be achieved through sanctions or
military action. He seems to will the ends but not the
means.</p>
<p>How does he think this can be achieved then? “The
only real hope for Venezuela’s future is the path of
negotiations between the government and the
opposition.” This is completely utopian and ignores
Venezuela’s recent past. In fact, over the years,
there have been many negotiations between the
government and the opposition. The current attempt by
imperialism is not the first. Already, in April 2002,
the opposition carried out a US-backed coup, barely
three years into the Chavez government. When President
Chavez was returned to power by a mass movement of the
poor, what did he do? He called on the opposition to
the negotiating table. How did they respond? By
immediately starting to prepare for another coup, this
time in the form of the sabotage of the oil industry
and a bosses’ lockout, which lasted from December 2002
until February 2003 and nearly crippled the economy.
The opposition does not want negotiations, they want
to crush the Bolivarian Revolution by any means
necessary. If they think they can achieve this via
negotiations, they will not object, as long as their
objectives are guaranteed.</p>
<p>The most recent attempt at negotiations was the
2016-17 talks in the Dominican Republic, brokered
amongst others by the former social-democratic
president of Spain Zapatero. The main demand of the
opposition in those talks was precisely “free and
fair” early presidential elections. When it seemed
that an agreeable compromise <a
href="https://twitter.com/osmarycnn/status/961402963125301251/">had
been reached</a> and even a date for the elections
had been fixed, then the opposition, under pressure
from Bogotá and Washington, decided to <a
href="https://venezuelanalysis.com/News/13647">walk
out of the talks</a>. Zapatero was fuming and he
advised the government to go ahead with the elections
on the agreed date. The election, in which a section
of the opposition (led by Henri Falcon) participated,
did take place, Maduro won and Zapatero, who <a
href="https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Zapatero-On-Elections-Now-The-Venezuelan-People-Must-Speak-20180518-0012.html">acted
as an observer</a>, <a
href="https://www.efe.com/efe/america/politica/observadores-reconocen-la-reeleccion-de-maduro-en-medio-del-ruido-internacional/20000035-3622996">vouched
for the process</a>. But, all of this appears to be
a closed book to Hetland.</p>
<p>And who is the government supposed to negotiate with?
Throughout his article and in other writings, Hetland
insists on establishing a difference between “radical
sectors of the opposition” or “sectors of the
far-right opposition” and the opposition as a whole.
In practice, on the ground, such a difference does not
exist. The current coup attempt led in Venezuela by
Guaidó is backed by <em>all </em>the opposition
parties represented in the National Assembly. The 2016
violent riots, which Hetland mentions in his article,
were also part of a <em>joint</em> and <em>united</em>campaign
by the opposition as a whole. The bulk of the
opposition, under pressure from Washington, boycotted
the presidential election and expelled Henri Falcón
from the MUD (Democratic Unity Roundtable) for taking
part in it.</p>
<p>In any case, how are these negotiations going to
happen? The government has said repeatedly that it is
prepared to negotiate (even with Trump), but the
opposition has rejected any advances. Hetland suggests
that perhaps the EU’s International Contact Group
could make this happen. This is either naïve or
seriously dangerous. The main EU countries are
completely subordinate to Washington’s strategy on
Venezuela. It was Spanish president Sanchez who issued
an eight-day ultimatum to Maduro to call presidential
elections. He was then joined by France, the UK,
Germany and the majority of EU members, who went on to
recognise Guaidó as the “legitimate president” of
Venezuela. The ICG was only created in order to
destroy Mexico’s independent initiative to find a
negotiated solution. When the ICG representatives
arrived in Montevideo, the Uruguayan government, under
pressure, abandoned its independent position and left
Mexico on its own.</p>
<h2>You cannot have half a revolution</h2>
<p>To add to Hetland’s mythical unicorn of a “democratic
opposition” he then adds that, once the US is removed
from the equation (how? By whom?) then we can hope
(hope springs eternal in the liberal breasts) for “a
growth of a much broader opposition movement, one in
which the voices of the popular classes could have
much more weight.” This is perhaps the crux of the
matter. The main problem in Hetland’s approach is the
lack of any discussion of the class nature of this
conflict.</p>
<p>The Venezuelan opposition, and behind it Washington,
represents the interests of the country’s oligarchy:
the rich and wealthy families that have ruled
Venezuela for over a 100 years and playing a
subordinate role to US imperialism. Their mass base of
support is mainly drawn from the middle-class and
upper-middle-class areas in the east of Caracas and
other major cities. Chavismo has its roots amongst the
working class, the poor peasants and the urban poor.</p>
<p>The opposition supporters have an irrational hatred,
a primal fear, of the chavista masses. During the
violent opposition rioting in 2016, a young man,
Orlando Figuera, was burnt alive and died as a result.
His “crime”? Being dark-skinned and therefore looking
both poor and like a chavista. Certainly, in this
opposition, the voices of the popular classes have no
weight. For good reason, most of the Venezuelan poor
and the working class have a healthy class instinct,
and they reject an opposition that they correctly see
as representing <em>Los Amos del Valle</em>, the
age-old oligarchy, abiding by the interests of
imperialism.</p>
<p>The Maduro government has had a policy of attempting
to compromise with and make concessions to the ruling
class. This has eroded popular support for the
Bolivarian Revolution. What “progressives” need to
discuss is the root cause of the crisis in Venezuela,
and on that basis, discuss a solution that benefits
the country’s working people.</p>
<p>The frightful economic crisis from which Venezuela is
suffering was triggered in 2014 by the collapse in the
price of oil, and has been aggravated by some of the
government’s policy decisions (deficit financing,
paying the foreign debt), widespread corruption <em>and
US sanctions</em>. But its root cause are the
well-meaning attempts of the Bolivarian government to
regulate the capitalist economy (through price and
foreign exchange controls, and robust labour and trade
union legislation) in order to protect the interests
of the many. This does not work. Capitalism cannot be
regulated. If such a thing is attempted, capitalists
resort to any measures necessary (legal or illegal) to
circumvent such controls, establish systems by which
they end up benefiting from them (foreign currency
speculation, black marketeering, hoarding) and
generally resort to sabotage (investment strikes and
capital flight). Venezuela is a textbook case of this.</p>
<p>There are therefore only two solutions to the
untenable status quo Hetland talks about. One resolves
the crisis in the benefit of the capitalist class and
imperialism. That is the one advocated by Guaidó in
his “Plan País”, with the backing of the US. It
involves privatising state-owned companies, opening up
the public sector to private capital, and above all
“opening up” the oil industry (which is what John
Bolton demanded). This would mean making the poor and
workers pay the full price of the crisis. That is the
opposition’s programme, and it certainly does not give
any weight to “the voices of the popular classes”.</p>
<p>The other solution would be based on pursuing genuine
revolutionary policies in the benefit of the majority,
a return to the tasks that Chavez announced but left
unfinished: a socialist economy and a “communal
state”. A socialist economy would require the
expropriation of the multinationals and the main
capitalist groups in Venezuela, as well as the
latifundia, in order to create a democratic plan of
production under workers’ control to satisfy the needs
of the majority. A communal state would imply putting
power in the hands of workers committees, peasant
committees and neighbourhood councils, so that the
people can rule.</p>
<p>Hetland seems to perceive only a handful of actors in
Venezuela: the US, the far-right opposition, a
mythical “democratic” opposition and the Maduro
government. However, there is also a chavista
revolutionary movement, which is not the same as the
government. This can be found in the El Maizal, in
organisations like Alexis Vive, in the few remaining
experiences of workers’ control and in the
tens-of-thousands of poor and working-class
Venezuelans who have come out in the last few weeks to
oppose imperialist intervention, but you will not find
it in the pages of the mass media in the US. They are
in different degrees critical of the Maduro government
as a whole or at least of some of its worst aspects
(corruption, bureaucracy, etc), but they know full
well that the coming to power of Guaidó, on the back
of an imperialist intervention, would be a major
disaster.</p>
<p>What progressives in the US should do is, first and
foremost, oppose the imperialist policies of their
government (including sanctions and military
intervention). This should be done, not just through
writing articles but by organising a mass campaign in
the streets and a mass education campaign amongst
students and workers. That campaign must distance
itself from and challenge the main premises that
imperialism is using to justify its intervention. It
does not mean suspending criticism of the Maduro
government, but that criticism should be made from the
point of view of the interests of Venezuelan workers
and peasants, not with a view to pleasing liberal
academics in the USA. Of course, such a campaign needs
to offer an analysis of what has gone wrong in
Venezuela, but that analysis needs to be firmly based
on a class perspective, not on the utopian idea that
EU-brokered talks can somehow resolve the conflict
between the interests of the Venezuelan workers and
poor and those of the oligarchy and imperialism.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this article are the
author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>