The Bolivarian hypothesis: An interview with PSUV deputy Roy Daza

by ROY DAZA & MARIA SIKORSKI

Latin America is a flashpoint for the major conflicts of the twenty-first century: the clash between Great Powers, the struggle over energy resources, the resurgence of reactionary nationalism and the popular resistance to it. The region has also become a testing ground for new forms of imperial intervention, as the Trump administration has radicalized its approach to the so-called western hemisphere, escalating its attacks on both Cuba and Venezuela. Yet Washington’s most dramatic act of aggression, kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and rendering him to New York, has not led to regime change in Caracas. Three months later the country’s state apparatus remains in place, and one of its foremost cadres, former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, has now taken the reins — negotiating sanctions relief and new commercial ties with the US from a highly asymmetrical position.

For an analysis of the Bolivarian revolution’s onward trajectory — the economic, financial, and military pressures to which the country has been subjected, and how domestic policymaking has tried to cope with them — Phenomenal World spoke to Roy Daza, a deputy for the ruling PSUV in Venezuela’s National Assembly. Daza is vice-chair of the National Assembly’s Foreign Policy Committee and chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group with Brazil. He is also a member of the newly established Special Committee for Monitoring the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence — a reform which pardons those accused of political violence as a means of restoring social peace.

While there is much to criticize in Maduro’s record, and while the nature of the historical relationship between Chavismo and Madurismo remains fiercely contested, most international media coverage of the Venezuelan crisis has impeded our understanding of such issues by systematically excluding Bolivarians like Daza who are aligned with the current administration. Whether or not one agrees with their perspective, one cannot map the prospects for this besieged nation without giving it careful consideration.

Let’s begin by discussing the diplomatic strategy adopted following the capture of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. What are the main pillars of Venezuela’s foreign policy today? What objectives is it pursuing with allied countries and multilateral organizations?

Over two hundred years of republican history, Venezuela had never before been bombed, nor has it ever waged war against another country. Even its most serious conflicts have always been resolved by political means. Peace is a fundamental pillar of the humanist thought of Commander Hugo Chávez and President Nicolás Maduro. The implementation of what Acting President Delcy Rodríguez calls Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy is in this sense the expression of a much longer historical legacy. This policy, as outlined in Rodríguez’s address to the National Assembly on January 15, is based on the recognition of the fundamental clash between the Monroe Doctrine and the doctrine of Simón Bolívar. It defines three major objectives for the Republic at this stage: to demand the immediate release of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, to maintain peace and stability within the nation, and to continue the development of the government program known as the Plan of the Seven Transformations.

The Bolivarian government is using all its diplomatic capacity to get the truth out, despite the intensity and persistence of the media campaign that has been waged against Venezuela for years. There needs to be coordinated action by international institutions to put an end to the blockade; we Bolivarians want to see them comply with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Vienna Conventions. We also maintain that the majority of the world’s nations agree with us in condemning the armed assault and kidnapping of President Maduro. That said, we also know that the Venezuelan people must ultimately rely on their own strength. Hence the relevance of Maduro’s teaching: “In the face of adversity — calm and composure, nerves of steel, and intense popular mobilization.”

The background to the abominable events of January 3 — the kidnapping of the President and First Lady, the deaths of 106 heroes, and the wounding of more than 200, amid the bombing of the city of Caracas and the states of Miranda and La Guaira — is important here. Barack Obama’s decision in 2015 to declare Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the security of the United States served as the basis for adopting unilateral coercive measures whose express purpose, as made clear by US government spokespeople, was to suffocate the Venezuelan economy. This resulted in international financial transactions being blocked, which caused a dramatic drop in imports and affected the domestic market, the investment landscape, and the replenishment of capital for private and state-owned companies. In short, it led to a situation of profound economic paralysis, which was exacerbated by a sharp drop in oil prices.

Links for more