by CIRA PASCUAL MARQUINA
Venezuela’s upcoming presidential election raises the issue of US meddling in Latin America.
Carlos Ron is Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America and heads Venezuela’s Simón Bolívar Institute, which promotes peace and solidarity among the world’s peoples. In part one of this interview, we talk to Ron about two opposing worldviews: Bolivarianism versus Monroism. Ron argues that the US doctrine of Monroism has been applied to Venezuela with the aim of toppling its government. Part two of the interview will address the upcoming presidential election and the challenges ahead for the Bolivarian Process.
The Monroe Doctrine, now 200 years old, has been historically linked to the US’ self-assigned right to hegemonize North and South America. By contrast, the Bolivarian Revolution promotes what is known as “Bolivarian Diplomacy.” Can you explain these two opposing visions?
This continent has been struggled over for more than 200 years. Even before Monroe’s famous speech, the idea existed that the US had some sort of right to the whole continent. The thirteen colonies achieved independence first, creating a republican system that was considered an improvement over the absolutist monarchies of Europe. For that reason, they felt destined to expand their system. From the beginning, they viewed the south of the continent as their home turf. They felt it was their “destiny” to control all the territories.
However, the perspective of the incipient US republic – conceived by and for white land-owning men – starkly contrasted with the Bolivarian one. The Bolivarian conception was also republican, but it was opposed to all aspects of colonialist oppression. In other words, revolutionaries in South America aimed to defeat absolutism and create a republic, but they also struggled to achieve social emancipation.
Inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, Bolívar envisioned a radical social transformation that would include land reform, the abolition of slavery, and universal education. That is, the transformation he had in mind was not limited to a change of rulers; our Independence Revolution was about entirely changing the society.
Bolívar’s vision included not just the independence of every colony, but also the unification of South America. The Bolivarian project was a national liberation process, not an expansionist one. That is key to understanding our Independence Revolution. Bolívar understood that South American countries needed to be strong and deal with other nations on equal terms, so integration was necessary. However, respecting the interests of each formerly colonized country was just as important.
Bolivar sought the unity of the former colonies in benefit of the whole people. It was not just a struggle of a few privileged individuals who aimed to do away with external domination while recreating the old forms of oppression.
As opposed to US independence, our national liberation process was not expansionist. The aim was not to be a superpower but to build a nation that could deal with other nations on equal terms. You can even see seeds of multipolarity in Bolívar’s thought.
Bolívar was convinced that the interests of every nation should be respected and believed that they would balance each other out. That’s what Bolívar called the “equilibrium of the universe.” He was opposed to one nation overpowering other nations. Instead, he believed in balance and complementarity.
It is easy to see how that enters into contradiction with the Monroe Doctrine and also later iterations of US foreign policy.
Later on, I want to ask about the Monroe Doctrine as it relates to the Bolivarian Process today. However, as background, could you explain what happened in Venezuela between its independence and Chávez’s coming into power in 1998?
After Venezuela’s independence, despite Bolívar’s best efforts, internal struggles and civil wars persisted for more than a century. In 1914, with the discovery of oil, things changed: US imperialism entered Venezuela’s daily life, taking control of much of the country’s political and economic organization. Why? The country had to become a reliable provider of oil to the US.
Venezuelan society, however, remained impoverished because this wealth was going to transnational corporations and a very small group of Venezuelans. There were indeed some social-democratic reforms at the time that led to Venezuelans having a higher standard of living than in other countries in the region. But inequalities and dependence on the US persisted.
Then, in the 1980s, neoliberalism entered the scene, and the country began moving backward in terms of social welfare. Poverty and exclusion increased. This is the context in which the Bolivarian Revolution took shape, with Chávez at its head.
Venezuelan Analysis for more