Venezuela grassroots responds to right-wing elections

by Tamara Pearson,

How will grassroots organizations within the Venezuelan revolution react to
the new situation? teleSUR talked to activists to get their perspective.

Facing possible austerity and a return to neoliberalism at the hands of a
right wing parliament, will the millions involved in the Bolivarian
revolution radicalize further and protect their 15 years of gains, or will
this be the blow that finally dampens their revolutionary joy and collective
ambition?

While the Bolivarian revolution will still have the presidency, and the
majority of governors and mayors, much of the national decision making and
resources will shift to the elites and right-wing Tuesday, when new
legislators swear in.

This has already seen some interesting small shifts within the revolution,
among the various forces; grassroots organizations, genuine revolutionaries
with leadership and institutional positions, and those in Venezuela's
Socialist Party, or PSUV, whose commitment to the socialist project has been
questioned.

After a call from President Nicolas Maduro for example, grassroots street
assemblies were held around the country after the disappointing electoral
defeat. In Merida state, various PSUV leaders, including the governor of
Merida, were nowhere to be seen at these assemblies. It was the persistent,
honest, hardworking, largely unpaid grassroots activist organizations such
as Tatuy TV, the alternative school, feminist groups, the more progressive
PSUV youth, and communal council members who were, and continue to be,
leading up these meetings and promoting their decisions.

Jessica Pernia, community television activist with Tatuy TV, told teleSUR English about her concern that decisions of the assemblies would not be taken seriously by some state and government leaders. According to Pernia, the assemblies were a "bit of a show" but she believes that "the people aren't stupid and maybe they'll be creative and something new will happen (with this opportunity)."

The media activist and other organizers say that people like the Merida
governor - whom they say is socialist in party membership but not in
practice - now have less interest in promoting grassroots organizing, if it
doesn't serve them electorally. Rather, some of those with institutional
power but opportunist politics are likely to tone down their discourse and
disappear somewhat off the radar, or even pander to the right-wing. Others
however may continue to make symbolic and tokenistic gestures towards
participatory democracy if faced with pressure from their workforce or their
electoral base, while the "genuine" socialist leaders will seize the opportunity to radicalize their area of control.

The grassroots will have the important task of protesting the right-wing
legislature's policies - something which is possibly more straight forward
for these groups than it was to criticize the internal problems of the
revolution. Unfortunately, those organizations will also face more difficult
conditions, with the possible elimination of progressive laws (such as
legislation facilitating community media), and little-to-no material support
from government. The role of the grassroots may also be obscured as the
focus centers on everything the right-wing tries and manages to do, as well
a possible presidential recall referendum and regional elections for state
governors this year.

Given this situation and the challenges facing the future of the Bolivarian
revolution, Maduro and outgoing national assembly president Diosdado Cabello
called these street assemblies as well as a "national communal parliament."
Maduro also approved a number of progressive laws and laws meant to preserve numerous social programs.

Nonetheless, the urgency of the situation meant that Cabello called for this
parliament with little to no consultation with leaders from Venezuela's
close to 1,200 communes - a key element of the Bolivarian revolution's move
towards "popular power."

Pernia celebrated new laws passed by the outgoing socialist national
assembly, but expressed concern about them being approved at the "last
minute."

"We spent so much time working on the Popular Communication Law,
systematizing our conclusions and applying pressure, and how long ago was
that? (Likewise) the seed law, and the Humanized Birthing Law, and these
guys come along ... and pass it two weeks before the right-wing take power
... they say better later than never, but one isn't stupid."

Likewise, on the National Communal Parliament, she said, "We think this will
be a very interesting exercise ... but it also feels like a bit of theater,
'you guys play at communal parliament while we make deals.' What's at stake,
the most important stuff, is being decided between four walls."

After 15 years of Chavismo and around a decade of progressive state politics
in some countries in Latin America, people are now more politically mature
and demanding of their leaders. Many activists in Venezuela say that they
need the revolution to be "deepened," and that the same-old progressive
policies - for example wealth distribution measures - are not enough any
more.

[Jessica] Pernia argued that the people should "up the ante" and stop demanding things like "household electronics and less bureaucracy, and instead demand a whole different economic system, the real transition to socialism, and create the communication system and political education system that Chavez dreamed about."

"Many people have demanded that imports be nationalized, a budgetary system of financing . socialization of the land and the whole process," she said. Yet with privatizations on the table, while millions of activists would
agree with Pernia, even the smallest demands beyond preserving old social gains are now going to become hard struggles.

Venezuela's grassroots have gained the experience to deal with the difficult
struggles ahead, but many questions remain. With the key upcoming recall and
governor elections this year, will the PSUV continue to consolidate itself
as mainly an electoral party, or will the grassroots play a greater role?

Will communal councils and communes strengthen themselves as decision making powers in light of the loss of power of the national assembly, and if so,
how will the right-wing react to that? How will the PSUV relate to them?

How will grassroots organizations within the Venezuelan revolution react to
the new situation? teleSUR talked to activists to get their perspective.

Facing possible austerity and a return to neoliberalism at the hands of a
right wing parliament, will the millions involved in the Bolivarian
revolution radicalize further and protect their 15 years of gains, or will
this be the blow that finally dampens their revolutionary joy and collective
ambition?

While the Bolivarian revolution will still have the presidency, and the
majority of governors and mayors, much of the national decision making and
resources will shift to the elites and right-wing Tuesday, when new
legislators swear in.

This has already seen some interesting small shifts within the revolution,
among the various forces; grassroots organizations, genuine revolutionaries
with leadership and institutional positions, and those in Venezuela's
Socialist Party, or PSUV, whose commitment to the socialist project has been
questioned.

After a call from President Nicolas Maduro for example, grassroots street
assemblies were held around the country after the disappointing electoral
defeat. In Merida state, various PSUV leaders, including the governor of
Merida, were nowhere to be seen at these assemblies. It was the persistent,
honest, hardworking, largely unpaid grassroots activist organizations such
as Tatuy TV, the alternative school, feminist groups, the more progressive
PSUV youth, and communal council members who were, and continue to be,
leading up these meetings and promoting their decisions.

Jessica Pernia, community television activist with Tatuy TV, told teleSUR
English about her concern that decisions of the assemblies would not be
taken seriously by some state and government leaders. According to Pernia,
the assemblies were a "bit of a show" but she believes that "the people
aren't stupid and maybe they'll be creative and something new will happen
(with this opportunity)."

The media activist and other organizers say that people like the Merida
governor - whom they say is socialist in party membership but not in
practice - now have less interest in promoting grassroots organizing, if it
doesn't serve them electorally. Rather, some of those with institutional
power but opportunist politics are likely to tone down their discourse and
disappear somewhat off the radar, or even pander to the right-wing. Others
however may continue to make symbolic and tokenistic gestures towards
participatory democracy if faced with pressure from their workforce or their
electoral base, while the "genuine" socialist leaders will seize the
opportunity to radicalize their area of control.

The grassroots will have the important task of protesting the right-wing
legislature's policies - something which is possibly more straight forward
for these groups than it was to criticize the internal problems of the
revolution. Unfortunately, those organizations will also face more difficult
conditions, with the possible elimination of progressive laws (such as
legislation facilitating community media), and little-to-no material support
from government. The role of the grassroots may also be obscured as the
focus centers on everything the right-wing tries and manages to do, as well
a possible presidential recall referendum and regional elections for state
governors this year.

Given this situation and the challenges facing the future of the Bolivarian revolution, Maduro and outgoing national assembly president Diosdado Cabello called these street assemblies as well as a "national communal parliament." Maduro also approved a number of progressive laws and laws meant to preserve numerous social programs.

Nonetheless, the urgency of the situation meant that Cabello called for this parliament with little to no consultation with leaders from Venezuela's close to 1,200 communes - a key element of the Bolivarian revolution's move towards "popular power."

Pernia celebrated new laws passed by the outgoing socialist national
assembly, but expressed concern about them being approved at the "last
minute."

"We spent so much time working on the Popular Communication Law,
systematizing our conclusions and applying pressure, and how long ago was
that? (Likewise) the seed law, and the Humanized Birthing Law, and these
guys come along ... and pass it two weeks before the right-wing take power
... they say better later than never, but one isn't stupid."

Likewise, on the National Communal Parliament, she said, "We think this will
be a very interesting exercise ... but it also feels like a bit of theater,
'you guys play at communal parliament while we make deals.' What's at stake,
the most important stuff, is being decided between four walls."

After 15 years of Chavismo and around a decade of progressive state politics
in some countries in Latin America, people are now more politically mature
and demanding of their leaders. Many activists in Venezuela say that they
need the revolution to be "deepened," and that the same-old progressive
policies - for example wealth distribution measures - are not enough any
more.

Pernia argued that the people should "up the ante" and stop demanding things
like "household electronics and less bureaucracy, and instead demand a whole
different economic system, the real transition to socialism, and create the
communication system and political education system that Chavez dreamed
about."

"Many people have demanded that imports be nationalized, a budgetary system of financing . socialization of the land and the whole process," she said. Yet with privatizations on the table, while millions of activists would
agree with Pernia, even the smallest demands beyond preserving old social gains are now going to become hard struggles.

Venezuela's grassroots have gained the experience to deal with the difficult struggles ahead, but many questions remain. With the key upcoming recall and governor elections this year, will the PSUV continue to consolidate itself as mainly an electoral party, or will the grassroots play a greater role? Will communal councils and communes strengthen themselves as decision making powersin light of the loss of power of the national assembly, and if so,
how will the right-wing react to that? How will the PSUV relate to them?

Black Lives Matter Network denounces U.S. “Continuing intervention” in Venezuela

Black Agenda Report
by Opal Tometi

The co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Network and Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration warns that the recent electoral victory of U.S.-backed counter revolutionary parties in Venezuela endangers the country’s African-descended population.

The letter (below) denounces “corporate media lies about electoral corruption voiced by Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sander’s defamation of late President Hugo Chavez labeling him a dictator.”

December 26, 2015
“We reject any action the U.S. puts forward to plunder Venezuelan natural resources, occupy the country and incite violence.”

Black North American Solidarity Statement with the Venezuelan People

On December 6, 2015, the eyes of the world turned to the National Assembly elections in Venezuela. For the 20th time in 17 years the Venezuelan people went to the polls, this time to elect the national legislature. In a significant blow to the progressive and most impoverished sectors of Venezuela – working-class, Afrodescendant and indigenous people – and to global allies, the counter-revolutionaries won control of the National Assembly.

In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world – a democratic process that has advocated the rights of Afrodescendants and other oppressed people within Venezuela and across the globe. We have seen the most marginalized sectors of Venezuela transform into active citizens in collaboration with a government that has responded to their needs and aspirations. Thousands of people who once worked cacao plantations as enslaved Africans, then sharecroppers, now run those fields as cooperatives. The profits from Venezuela’s vast oil reserves that once went directly to U.S. oil now are invested in social programs.

Black people in North America understand that the triumphs of oppressed people anywhere in the world are triumphs for Black people everywhere. And so, we smile with the young girl in the Venezuelan countryside, as she leaves a Mission Barrio Adentro clinic, her asthma symptoms treated without cost by a Cuban doctor. Her health is our own. We stand with the single young mother, as she takes leadership of her community council with unwavering commitment to her barrio’s collective well-being, building their own urban gardens. Her voice is our own. We enter the house of a family who has benefited from Venezuela’s housing mission which has built nearly one million homes across the country. Their dignity is our own. We stand with the Venezuelan people as they build a revolutionary and popular democracy based on communal power. Their struggle is our own.

“We reject the hypocrisy of the Venezuelan elite – who like settlers everywhere – cling to their white privilege to the point of even lynching Afrodescendants.”

We denounce the United States of America’s continuing intervention and support for the counter-revolution in Venezuela using economic, political, psychological, media and military means. We will never forget the U.S.’s shameless backing of the 2002 coup carried out by the right-wing Venezuelan elite. We reject any action the U.S. puts forward to plunder Venezuelan natural resources, occupy the country and incite violence. For example, the U.S. supported the opposition’s guarimbas in 2014 resulting in the deaths of 43 people and millions of dollars of property and commercial damage. We reject the hypocrisy of the Venezuelan elite – who like settlers everywhere – cling to their white privilege to the point of even lynching Afrodescendants. We denounce U.S. espionage against Venezuela, illegal surveillance of PDVSA, violation of Venezuelan airspace and sanctions against Venezuela. We denounce the corporate media lies about electoral corruption voiced by Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sander’s defamation of late President Hugo Chavez labeling him a dictator.

We deeply appreciate solidarity that the Venezuelan people have expressed with Black people in North America in our struggles against state violence, social injustice and exclusion from democratic decision making. We recognize how the Bolivarian government offered aid to the people of New Orleans after Katrina and free and low-cost heating oil to communities like the Bronx, New York.

We are Black organizations and individuals fighting against U.S. white supremacy and imperialism and for human rights and social justice. We offer this expression of our unwavering solidarity with the progressive and revolutionary Venezuelan people as they reflect, regroup and rectify to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.

We demand U.S. Hands off Venezuela!
We stand with the Venezuelan people and defend their right to self-determination!

In solidarity,
Opal Tometi(@opalayo)
Co-Founder, Black Lives Matter /Executive Director, Black Alliance for Just Immigration

If you support the statement please sign and share using the below link:
http://www.blackforvenezuela.com/

Printed from: http://venezuelanalysis.com/

Why the counter revolution won in Venezuela - what does it mean for the future?

Maduro concedes defeat in assembly vote

by Tamara Pearson

On December 6, Venezuela held its 20th election in 17 years and one of its most difficult yet. With the [right-wing] opposition upping the ante in terms of media attacks and sabotage, 2.5 years of economic difficulties and since the passing of revolutionary leader Hugo Chavez, not to mention a recent right-wing victory in Argentina, the left and right around the world turned anxious eyes to Venezuela.



Ultimately, the Bolivarian revolution — the “Perfect Alliance” of the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and other supportive parties and organizations — lost at the polls with the right-wing, US-backed opposition winning at least 99 seats, and 19 still to be decided. Eighty-seven is necessary for a simple majority.

What does this electoral loss for the revolutionary forces mean

What does this electoral loss for the revolutionary forces mean politically, and given the current context in Venezuela, what will the consequences of it be, going forward?

Key factors

1) As usual, this year the disinformation by the opposition media has been intense. The opposition's main campaigning was through local and international media and social media, with very little street campaigning.

2) Many of those who do generally vote for the opposition do so because they want to vote against the government (and everything demonic and evil the private media has made it represent, "Castro-communism," where even droughts are the national government's fault) or for ambiguous "change" after 16 years of Chavismo, without being particularly concerned or aware of what that change is. Many of these people are of course upper class people who resent the empowerment of the poor that has come with the revolutionary process, but their ranks have been swollen by those frustrated by the last two years of serious difficulties.

3) Other key factors bringing people to the opposition include encouragement by the right-wing victory in Argentina, with a Trump-like figure due to swear-in as president on Dec. 10, and younger generations in Venezuela who now don't remember what it was like in Venezuela before Chavez was elected in 1998 (18-year-old voters would have been 3-years-old at the time).

4) But while the opposition has attracted some of the less politically aware social sectors to its anti-Chavismo discourse, the government has also lost some ground from conscientious and solid revolutionaries, partly due to its lack of a solid response to the opposition's "economic war". Although it's easier said than done to combat a rentier state, capitalist system, historical corruption, and big business's campaign of economic sabotage, Maduro has only announced things like national commissions to deal with the situation.

While people spend up to seven hours a week lining up for food, and while many of them understand that the government isn't directly responsible for the situation, the lack of a serious response and significant measures hasn't helped support for the government.

5) Further, while the government clearly sides with the poor, for multiple reasons including more right-wing attacks, it has becoming increasingly distanced from the organized grassroots. "The government would have more of a sense of urgency (in solving problems) if it was closer to the people in the street," Rachael Boothroyd Rojas, community activist and Venezuelanalysis journalist told teleSUR. That distance is relative to other times in the Bolivarian revolution, not to other governments around the world, who don't come close to the ties to the grassroots that the PSUV government has.

However, with the way the government communicates with the people, the way it gets information out and involves people in serious decision making—there has been a step back in recent times. This aspect of the Bolivarian revolution is perhaps the most important, so the significance of it and its impact on people shouldn't be underestimated.

Likely consequences

The consequences are serious, but do not necessarily mark the end of the revolution. Despite its financial resources and support from international powers and elites, the opposition has not been strategic or intelligent and won't be strategic with this new power.

Under Chavez and the revolution, they lost privileges and a lot of their initial measures will be about getting revenge: probably things like kicking out the Cuban doctors, making fun of the poor classes that have lost, continuing to not collect garbage, and enjoying the praise from the international media. They won't fix the economic problems, that's not their aim, and after all, they (the business elites and wealthy people with access to dollars) benefit from the crazy exchange rates and huge profits gained from hoarding.

Further, with this and the right-wing win in Argentina, the talk of the left losing Latin America will strengthen, the media as usual broadcasting how they wish things were rather than any sort of complex analysis. Nevertheless, two such losses will no doubt cause some regional demotivation among progressives and have a significant impact on Latin American integration bodies.

For PSUV politicians, there will hopefully be some reflection, and the government will now be in the difficult position of having to compromise with the opposition. Maduro and his ministers are still in power, but unable to allocate extra income (beyond the budget for 2016, passed on Dec. 1) or modify laws or approve bilateral and multilateral treaties.

After the referendum loss in 2007, Chavez moderated his discourse and policies for a while, and Maduro may be forced to do so even more. It's hard to know if in these circumstances, Maduro will turn to the grassroots for more support, or will distrust them even more after loosing some of their support, and if he will see the outcome as a need for reflection, or purely the consequence of opposition sabotage.

For grassroots Chavistas, the majority of whom who have never been involved in the revolution for the sake of financial resources, they will continue organizing, promoting their progressive projects, their community organizations, but under more difficult circumstances.

For the first time, they may not feel like the proud, governing majority in the country. On the other hand, an opposition with power is more the reason for strengthening organization. Having lost the luxury of taking victories for granted, the grassroots will likely become even more serious. With an emboldened opposition, they and their projects may also face verbal and physical attacks.

For the wavering voters, in the long term, having the opposition in power could be a bit of a reminder and reality check as they see that things get worse for the majority of people.

That the opposition has won its second out of 20 elections under Chavismo proves that all the U.S, European, opposition, and private media hype about how undemocratic Venezuela's electoral system is false. Of course, their reaction will be to claim that it was their "international pressure" that kept things in check.

Overall though, this loss, while it is a big step back for the progressive cause, it isn't the end of the line. The global struggle for a world that puts people and planet first, for a democratically controlled economy and so on, is a long term one with many ups and downs, defeats and victories.

Reprinted from Green Left Weekly.
First printed in TeleSur English

U.S. targets Venezuela using border dispute as pretext

U.S. continues in its quest to destabilize Venezuela militarily and economically

by Eric Draitser

The ongoing border dispute between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its eastern neighbor Guyana is no simple disagreement over an arbitrary line on a map. Actually, it is a conflict of significant political and economic dimensions, one which will have deep and far-reaching geopolitical implications in the near and long term.

The area in question is known as Guayana Esequiba (Essequibo), a region with competing territorial claims going back more than a century to a time when British imperial interests dominated the contours of the political map of much of the world, including Latin America. Since 1966, when Guyana became a nominally independent country, this territory has been under dispute by the interested parties; Venezuela has claimed the territory as part of its sovereign authority going back to an odious 1899 decision in favor of Britain. However, that has not stopped Guyana from seeking to undermine the stability of the region by claiming de facto sovereignty over the whole of the territory, selling highly valued oil and gas exploration concessions to key North American corporate energy interests. These actions have led to an intensification of the conflict, forcing Venezuela to respond with diplomatic and political pressure.

But of course, as with all things pertaining to Venezuela on the international stage, there is a hidden agenda rooted in the imperial politics of Washington. In its attempt to stifle Venezuela’s political and economic development as an independent regional actor, the US is using its influence to destabilize the region. The goals are distinct, but intimately connected: enrich US energy corporations at the expense of Venezuela and, simultaneously, both position military assets and shape propaganda that paints Venezuela as an aggressor, thereby providing the pretext for US escalation. In this way, Washington is attempting to reassert by stealth the hegemony it once maintained with brute force.

The Economics and Politics of Esequiba

At the heart of this border dispute is energy and the billions of dollars in profits likely to be extracted from the offshore territory. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), “The Guyana Suriname Basin [is] 2nd in the world for prospectivity among the world’s unexplored basins and 12th for oil among all the world’s basins – explored and unexplored.” The basin, which stretches from eastern Venezuela to the shores of northern Brazil, is one of the major prizes in the world for energy corporations and governments alike.

Indeed, the USGS estimates that roughly 15 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 42 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves lie under the basin, just waiting to be extracted. Such staggering economic potential has made the territorial waters off Venezuela and Guyana highly sought after, especially since the contesting border claims make the legal obstacles to exploration far more surmountable as they allow companies to deal with a compliant government in Georgetown, rather than an independent one Caracas.

The unresolved conflict over territorial claims has not stopped the newly elected Guyanese government of David Granger from picking up where its predecessor left off, and supporting Exxon Mobil’s exploration drilling in the Stabroek Block, which lies in the heart of the disputed territory. The importance of the competing claims is further underscored by the fact that the very week of Granger’s election victory, Exxon Mobil reported a “significant oil discovery” in the very same area. Whether the announcement of the discovery was timed to coincide with the accession of Granger to the presidency, or it was mere coincidence, is somewhat secondary to the critical fact that this announcement infuses the dispute with a significant economic component; it is no longer merely about potential energy deposits, but actual energy extraction. This development provides an added imperative for the US to flex its muscles in this conflict.

And so it has. The US has recently officially thrown its weight firmly behind its political, economic, and military ally Guyana. However, beyond simply backing Guyana in a bilateral fashion, the US has wielded its influence in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) organization to position the grouping to “stand firmly behind Guyana,” as Freundel Stuart, prime minister of Barbados and chairman of CARICOM stated earlier this month. Unlike ALBA and PetroCaribe, two regional groupings led by Venezuela that are not under the dominance of Washington, CARICOM is in many ways part of US power projection in the region.

Again, it is unlikely that the US and CARICOM positions in support of Guyana, announced within days of each other, and within eight weeks of a major discovery and all-important election, are mere happenstance. Instead, they are part of a broader campaign of political escalation designed to pressure Venezuela into either dropping its claims entirely or, at the very least, toning down its demands that its sovereignty and territorial integrity be acknowledged and respected.

But the escalation is not merely one of rhetoric. Rather, the US is turning up the heat both militarily and the realm of propaganda and public relations.

A New Front in the Destabilization of Venezuela

It is no secret that that the US has sought to undermine and destroy the Bolivarian revolution from almost the very moment of its birth with the ascendance of Hugo Chavez. While perhaps the most prominent example of such subversion came with the 2002 coup against the legal government of Venezuela – a failed regime change supported by Washington despite almost universal international condemnation – it is by no means the only attempt at destabilization. Since Chavez’s passing, the soft power subversion and sabotage of the government has only increased, from economic warfare to the funding and support of Venezuela’s opposition. It is within this context that the developments in the Venezuela-Guyana dispute must be understood.

Essentially, the conflict with Guyana is both an economic one, and a military/strategic one. While there is not a hot war between the two countries, the US has positioned its assets in such a way as to make that a very real possibility. Though downplaying the US role, Washington has been sending a clear message – one might say a veiled threat of force – to Caracas with some of its recent comments. The Charge D’Affaires of the US Embassy in Guyana recently stated that, “The US has a long-standing relationship with the Guyana Defence Force (GDF). We have engaged in a number of co-operative and developmental efforts over the years to provide training and expertise...and exchange experience in a wide variety of areas.” Such statements may seem relatively innocuous, but they are to be read as an acknowledgment of the military capacity of US power in the region, which in many ways sees Guyana as a de facto proxy.

Indeed, there is much evidence upon which to base such an assertion aside from just the words of US officials. Since 2010, the US Navy has had a cooperative relationship, including docking and training, with its Guyanese counterparts based in Port Georgetown. In addition, Guyana figures prominently in the Pentagon’s project in South America known as SOUTHCOM, with the country seen as an outpost for US military power projection against Venezuela.

Though much of this military cooperation and partnership is already known, there is a new danger for Venezuela, one that most political observers around the world have either missed or otherwise ignored: the accession of David Granger to power. While he has been heralded by western media as a reformer leading a multiracial, inclusive coalition, the overlooked fact is that Granger is a direct military product, if not asset, of the US and its allies.

As Guyana’s Government Information Agency (GINA) noted on its website, President Granger “attended the University of the West Indies, the University of Maryland and the National Defence University in the USA...He received his military training at the Mons Officer Cadet School and the School of Infantry in the United Kingdom, the Jungle Warfare Instruction Centre in Brazil, and the Army Command and Staff College in Nigeria.”

Students of the modern history of Latin America are all too familiar with this story: US and British trained military leader assumes control over strategically and geopolitically important country in the region, one that shares a border with a declared adversary of Washington. Though he may not be a product of the infamous School of the Americas, Granger’s pedigree, coupled with his declared focus on the “territorial integrity” of Guyana portends dangerous potential moves by his government, especially at a time of escalating tensions.

Of course, the US continues with its propaganda campaign against the Bolivarian Republic as well. From imposing sanctions against Venezuela for trumped up “human rights abuses,” to declaring the country “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” that constitutes a “national emergency,” Washington has clearly taken the decision to ratchet up tensions in 2015. The dispute with Guyana is clearly a new vector in this broader destabilization strategy.

And that is how the border conflict must be understood – a new front in an old war. Though there may be billions at stake for energy corporations, as well as military imperatives for the Pentagon, ultimately the dispute is geopolitical in nature. The Guayana Esequiba issue is, at its root, an issue of US hegemony and imperialism.
***
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the editor of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/Telesur Englis