Perhaps you’re one of the many students who have recently encountered the posters and pamphlets posted around Carleton’s campus, urging that Canada take a hands-off approach with regards to Venezuela’s collapse.
Some argue that, while they don’t like the dictator, they don’t want to risk encouraging American imperialism. Others go so far as to say that Nicolás Maduro’s regime is unfairly maligned; the target of capitalist powers for its defence of Bolivarian socialism.
I understand why some people take this stance. It’s true that the United States’ history in Latin America is disgusting and shameful.
It’s also easy to see that U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is more interested in Venezuela for geopolitical reasons than out of a concern for human rights.
However, I would still argue that a non-interventionist stance towards the current crisis in Venezuela would be a moral failure.
First, a neutral stance is simply not a viable option, because the crisis is not contained within Venezuela’s borders. Millions of refugees have fled to Venezuela’s neighbours, Colombia in particular. Canada cannot sit in its ivory tower while other nations bear the brunt of this mess.
Second, the hands-off approach is a failure to articulate a principled stance in international affairs. Instead, it embraces isolationist and short-term thinking. Left-wing politicians, in particular, should adopt a simple rule: take the side of the victim.
The simple fact of the matter is that the United States, despite its sanctions, did not cause the current crisis.
It is entirely the doing of Hugo Chavez, the former longtime socialist leader of Venezuela, and Maduro. Chavez’s administration encouraged cronyism and corruption on an unprecedented scale, using oil revenues to temporarily buy support while enriching themselves.
They failed to invest oil revenues for the future of the country, deciding instead to print money at Zimbabwean levels after oil prices dropped. They politicized the judicially-imprisoned journalists and protestors. They made food aid dependent on support for the regime.
Additionally, Maduro’s “victory” in 2018 was tainted by severe fraud. This includes disqualifying leading opposition candidates, buying votes with food, intimidation, calling elections with insufficient time to campaign and much more, leading to the lowest voter turnout in history. Over 50 nations refused to recognize this theft.
Venezuela’s constitution stipulates that in the absence of a Venezuelan president—in this case because of Maduro’s illegitimacy—the President of the National Assembly takes over. That’s Juan Guaidó. Given this situation, are we in Canada really expected to just sit aside and ignore Guaidó’s considered, limited and peaceful call for support from the international community? Would that be moral?
Finally, I believe that the hands-off crowd is failing to recognize a new situation when they see one. The left may be eager to avoid repeating the history of American meddling in Latin America, but Maduro is not Salvador Allende. Guaidó is certainly no Augusto Pinochet.
To compare to another similar circumstance: following the Iraq War, much of the North American left looked back on the lies and the carnage, and concluded that the West could no longer interfere in Middle Eastern affairs.
That lesson, unfortunately, has led much of it to stand on the sidelines throughout Bashar al-Assad’s war against his own people in Syria, in which over half a million people have died.
Similarly, I would like to avoid allowing the use of past tragedies in Latin America to permit Venezuela’s demise. A recent op/ed published in the Charlatan argued that Canada needs to let Venezuelans “choose the fate of their country without foreign interference.” I agree.
However, Maduro has robbed the Venezuelan people of the ability to do just that. Canada can play a major role in finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis, rather than the United States’s heavy hand.
And, unless the international community—in particular, the left, who for so long supported Chavez—speak up, the situation will not change.
Filo photo
