Tag: venezuela

President Trump on Sunday shared a picture of a fake Wikipedia page that described him as the “Acting President of Venezuela” as he continues to push the idea that the US is “running” the country following the attack to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump has insisted that the real acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, who served as Maduro’s vice president, is willing to go along with his plan, which has received a cool reception from US oil companies.

While Rodriguez has said she’s willing to cooperate with the US, her government has maintained a message of unity and defiance in the face of US aggression and continues to call for the release of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“In these difficult times our country is experiencing, Venezuelans have once again demonstrated that our greatest strength is national unity and historical awareness,” Rodríguez said in a post on Telegram on Monday.

“The collective response has been one of firmness, serenity, and determination to preserve peace, raise our voices for the release of President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, and defend the constitutional order, which guarantees protection and social justice for our people,” she added.

Keep reading

The United States decapitated the Venezuelan regime and is dictating policy in Venezuela, running the country like an American colony. But the regime remains in place. Washington has been forced to exercise its dominance overtly through thuggish economic and military coercion rather than covertly by installing the pro-U.S. opposition.

There are at least four reasons for this failure. The first is past failures. Many of them. Guillaume Long, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador and currently a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told me that “regime change (meaning getting the pro-US opposition into power) failed in Venezuela, because there have been so many US-supported failed coup attempts in Venezuela in the last few years, that there is literally no one left to organize and support a coup attempt.” That means that to pull off complete regime change would have required a military uprising or coup in Venezuela that the U.S. could support. “The Venezuelan security apparatus,” Long says, “is too tight for that right now.”

The second is that the most recent failures of U.S. supported coups in Venezuela left the Trump administration feeling that the opposition was incapable of taking over the country. The Trump administration had consistently asserted that Nicolás Maduro was an illegitimate leader who had stolen the last election from the María Corina Machado led opposition. Following the capture of Maduro, Machado declared that “Today we are prepared to assert our mandate and seize power.” But if she was, Trump wasn’t. Trump spurned Machado, saying “it would be very tough for her to be the leader if she doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect within [Venezuela].”

That reversal and rejection “blindsided Machado’s aides” and “landed like a gut punch” for Machado. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump was leery of the Machado led opposition “after concluding it failed to deliver in his first term.” The U.S. had broken Venezuela with sanctions that had reduced oil production by 75 percent, that led to the “worst depression, without a war, in world history,” and caused tens of thousands of deaths. They had, to a large extent, diplomatically isolated Maduro, and they had done everything they could to catalyze a military uprising. But the armed forces did not rise up, the people did not rise up, and the opposition failed to take power. The Trump administration assessed “the opposition overpromised and underperformed.”

“Senior U.S. officials had grown frustrated with her assessments of Mr. Maduro’s strength, feeling that she provided inaccurate reports that he was weak and on the verge of collapse,” The New York Times reports. They had become “skeptical of her ability to seize power in Venezuela.” After repeatedly asking Machado for her plan “for putting her surrogate candidate, Edmundo González, into office,” they came to the realization that she had “no concrete ideas” on how to achieve that goal.

The third reason is that Machado is too radical to unite the opposition and the people of Venezuela. She “represents the most hardline faction” of the opposition, William Leo Grande, Professor of Government at American University and a specialist in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, told me. Yale University history professor Greg Grandin says, Machado has “constantly divided… and handicapped the opposition” by advancing a “more hardline” position.

When Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize, Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History at Pomona College and one of the world’s leading experts on Venezuelan history and politics, reminded me that Machado supported a coup against a democratically elected government, was a leading organizer of the violent La Salida insurrection that left many dead, and endorses foreign military intervention in her country. She was a signatory to the Carmona Decree, which suspended democracy, revoked the constitution, and installed a coup president.

Machado has supported the painful American sanctions on Venezuela. According to The New York Times, this strategy lost her support among the people and the elite. The business elite were threatened by sanctions and had “built a modus vivendi with Mr. Maduro to continue working.” The general population were anxious to improve living conditions, and Machado’s message alienated them. But as Trump tightened sanctions, Machado “remained largely silent.”

Her loss of support led to the loss of control of the levers required to come to power. Leo Grande told me that Machado’s hardline approach made her “the least acceptable to the armed forces.” “Trying to impose her,” he said, “would be very risky.” Tinker Salas told me that Machado is both “unacceptable to the military and the police forces” and to the ruling PSUV party structure. “Her imposition,” he said, “would have been a deal breaker.”

A classified U.S. intelligence assessment came to the same conclusion. The CIA analysis recommended working with the vice president of the current regime over working with Machado. The assessment convinced Trump “that near-term stability in Venezuela could be maintained only if Maduro’s replacement had the support of the country’s armed forces and other elites,” which Machado did not.

Keep reading

The United States invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro, the domestically recognized Venezuelan president, violated the U.S. Constitution and international law.

The Constitution makes clear that only Congress can authorize a foreign invasion. In the pre-World War II era, Congress declared war on countries that attacked the U.S. or were allied with those that did, and those declarations expired upon the surrender by legal authorities in the targeted countries.

In the post-9/11 era, Congress has chosen to authorize the use of military force, without providing for a trigger that would terminate the authorization. Indeed, just last month, Congress rescinded George W. Bush-era military authorizations that had been used by Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to target groups not even in existence at the time of the authorizations.

But, as morally deficient as the authorizations were, they were at least constitutionally sound, as they were the product of presidential requests and congressional deliberations and authorizations. We now know that at least two of these were fraudulent — the administration lied to Congress and to the United Nations. But, again, at least it fomented debate and recognized its obligations under the Constitution and the U.N. Charter to seek approval before invading a foreign country.

The Charter is a treaty, drafted by U.S. officials in the aftermath of World War II and ratified by the Senate. Under the Constitution, treaties are, like the Constitution itself, the supreme law of the land.

President Donald Trump violated his sworn and paramount obligations to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when he ordered his invasion of Venezuela without congressional authorization and when he attacked a member state of the U.N. without U.N. authorization.

James Madison himself argued at the Constitutional Convention that if a president could both declare war and wage war, he’d be a prince; not unlike the British monarch from whose authority the 13 colonies had just seceded. And the American drafters of the U.N. Charter, indeed American senators who voted to ratify it, understood that its very purpose was to prevent unlawful and morally unjustified attacks by one member nation upon another.

When he was asked after the troops had seized President Maduro why the administration had not complied with the Constitution and sought congressional approval for the invasion, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave laughable answers. First, he said the Maduro extraction was not an invasion. OK, an armada of ships, assault helicopters, hundreds of troops, 80 deaths and two kidnappings in a foreign land is not an invasion, but the sale of cocaine to willing American buyers is?

Then he said Congress cannot be trusted. Congress is a coequal branch of the federal government — under the Constitution, the first among equals.

Then he said that the Trump administration faced an emergency. Federal law defines an emergency as a sudden and unexpected event likely to have a deleterious effect on national security or economic prosperity. There was no emergency last weekend.

Why is it wrong for the president to violate the Constitution?

For starters, he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend it. It is the source of his governmental powers. The Supreme Court has ruled that all federal power comes from the Constitution and from nowhere else. This is manifested in the 10th Amendment, which commands that governmental powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government do not lie dormant awaiting a federal capture, rather they remain in the people or the states. This is at least the Madisonian view of constitutional government.

Its opposite is the Wilsonian view — after that pseudo-constitutional law professor in the White House, Woodrow Wilson — which holds that the federal government can address any national problem, foreign or domestic, for which it has sufficient political support, except for the express prohibitions imposed upon it in the Constitution. Sadly, every president since Wilson has been a Wilsonian.

Keep reading