Venezuela regime change will set a perilous precedent
IF THE US disregards the UN Charter and stages a military intervention in Venezuela, a dangerous precedent will have been set, with potential ramifications for the African continent.
Just as successive US administrations ended up overthrowing 41 governments in Latin America between 1898 and 1994, a successful overthrow of the Maduro government will empower the Trump administration to pursue this model of regime change elsewhere in the world.
The US has already threatened Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua, and the domino effect won’t necessarily end there. It could add Zimbabwe to the mix – right on our doorstep.
This is why the determination of the US to overthrow the Maduro government by force is of particular concern to South Africa and the AU, which has fought against regime change through unconstitutional means and for the right of sovereign states to self-determination.
This week South Africa’s ambassador to the UN, Jerry Matjila, delivered a powerful intervention on Venezuela during the UN Security Council debate.
One of the most crucial points he made on behalf of the South African government was that the UN Security Council – established to ensure peace and security among nations – is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members. And the UN Charter and international law proscribe the threat of force, he said.
That really is the crux of the matter – once a hegemon starts to undermine the UN Charter and international law, it leads only own the path of chaos, as happened in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
It is crucial that the international community reverses the trend of the powerful using nefarious means to overthrow democratically elected governments of the less powerful.
Otherwise the rush to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime change will become the norm in international relations. South Africa, which laudably gave up its nuclear arsenal for the sake of peaceful coexistence, has the right to insist that the nuclear powers curtail their urge to determine the destiny of other nations.
What makes South Africa all the more anxious about such external aggression is the legacy of colonialism, where the African continent as a whole suffered as foreign powers used force to determine the who ruled and controlled their resources.
When the left talks about the US and other Western powers as being neo-imperialist, it is not far from the truth. A large part of what drives US interest in regime change in Venezuela is the control of its massive oil reserves, which are larger than those of Iran or Saudi Arabia.
If it was all about bringing democracy to Venezuela and installing a more economically responsible leader, then why has the strong arm of US imperialism not altered the trajectory of other countries whose people live under repression?
What about unbridled US support for an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia, which has an appalling human rights records and whose citizens don’t even have the opportunity to vote? Or what about complete US support and massive financial backing of a repressive government in Egypt? Why is political dialogue the way forward for North Korea, but not for Venezuela?
South Africa and UN members who defend the UN Charter and UN Security Council as the apex decision-making body for peace and security are fighting an uphill battle against the forces of military intervention and regime change. The battle is made that much more vicious as the Western regime change agenda has the major Western media houses on their side.
Week after week one reads AP’s reporting on Venezuela; one could be forgiven for thinking it takes its cue directly from the Oval office. Never has reporting on a country been so biased, but then again, a pliant media convinced the world in 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
If those on the UN Security Council lose the battle to a new coalition of the willing intent on intervening militarily in Venezuela without the sanction of the UN, the world order will become that much more dangerous.
As Matjila told his counterparts on the UN Security Council, an internal inclusive political dialogue remains the only viable, sustainable path to ending Venezuela’s crisis. Only the people of Venezuela can decide their future. Venezuela does not pose a threat to international peace and security, so a Chapter VII intervention will never be authorised by the UN Security Council. Resolving the situation in Venezuela should be in keeping with the intent of Chapter VI – a political solution via negotiation, mediation or arbitration.