Elias Jaua is a Chavista, revolutionary socialist and former vice-president under President Hugo Chávez (2010–12). He currently directs the Centre for Studies on Socialist Democracy (CEDES).
Green Left’s Federico Fuentes spoke to Jaua, who explained how Venezuela came to be “militarily occupied and subjected to a policy of coercive tutelage” and why Venezuelans will need to wage a struggle for national liberation.
The following is abridged from a longer interview that can be read at links.org.au.
* * *
You have referred to Venezuela’s situation after January 3 as a “military occupation”. Could you explain why?
This is based on what the Venezuelan government as well as [US President] Donald Trump and [US Secretary of State] Marco Rubio have officially declared.
The US government said that, under the threat of further large-scale infrastructure destruction and removal of more leaders, Venezuela accepted Trump’s plan.
So, undoubtedly, the public threat of a larger-scale military attack exists. This implies military coercion. It also explains what has happened since.
What is Trump’s plan?
The most visible aspect of his plan is controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and depositing the income into a US Treasury Department-administered fund. Only some money will be handed back to allow the Venezuelan state to keep functioning.
This is nothing more than tutelage under coercion and the neo-colonial administration of one government by another.
The US’ goals then expanded to include gold and other strategic minerals. Venezuela’s foreign policy has also been curtailed on issues such as solidarity with Cuba, Iran and Palestine.
This constitutes a very serious act of aggression. Such actions are outside all international legal frameworks. The international community should be seriously concerned about a country being subjected to these conditions.
You wrote that the “inability or unwillingness to manage the political conflict within a national and democratic framework” opened the door to foreign interference. What internal factors help us understand January 3?
Well, it was a long journey to January 3, but I will summarise it.
From the outset of the Bolivarian Revolution, which began with Commandante Hugo Chávez’s election win in 1998, a section of the opposition opted to call for foreign interference, in a bid to halt this revolutionary democratic process.
From 2001–2002, [when the right-wing opposition launched a failed coup in April 2002 and then tried to shut down the oil industry between December 2002–January 2003], an external agent became involved in this national political conflict. This shaped the course of events over the next two decades.
This conflict worsened after Chávez's death. At the time, the opposition falsely believed his death had weakened the Bolivarian Revolution’s foundations to the extent that they could quickly resolve it by overthrowing President Nicolás Maduro, who was elected in 2013.
So, in 2014, we had the so-called La Salida [The Exit — a wave of violent protests in January-February]. This was an insurrectionary strategy to overthrow the government.
After this strategy failed, the US government began openly involving itself in Venezuelan politics. This started when the Barack Obama administration declared Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.
What specifically changed?
I believe this is when we lost what I call “domestic management” of the national conflict. Despite all the foreign interference since 2002, at least until 2013 the conflict was managed democratically among domestic Venezuelan forces.
But from 2014–15 onwards, the US started directly intervening in attempts by domestic forces to secure a political resolution to the national conflict. They imposed conditions on — and sabotaged — agreements.
I was part of the negotiating team in the Dominican Republic ahead of the 2018 elections, where we were on the verge of signing an agreement with the opposition. However, this was called off on the US’ instructions.
Then came the Trump administration, and the establishment and recognition of [opposition leader] Juan Guaidó’s parallel government.
How did the Maduro government respond to this change?
At this point, the national government sought to establish direct dialogue with the US government, something it ultimately achieved.
Thus, negotiations stopped solely involving domestic forces. Both the opposition (which sought, encouraged and opened the doors to foreign intervention) and the government (which wanted to recognise the US as the sole negotiating partner) contributed to the loss of domestic management over the national conflict.
From there, the situation escalated until January 3, with the grave consequences of a treacherous military attack and subsequent US occupation and tutelage over Venezuela.
On top of the economic tutelage and illegal and arbitrary administration of our resources, today the fundamental political decisions affecting Venezuela are not being resolved nor decided in Venezuela. The majority of political forces now look to the White House to see what they decide, to see when they will call elections and whom they will endorse as candidates.
[The current political situation] allowed US intervention to achieve its objectives — seize control of energy and mining resources and strike a blow against the people’s resistance — as part of its bid to re-establish itself as a hegemonic power.
Despite all the talk of possible regime change, Trump left the government in power. Why do you think that was?
Firstly, because of US domestic politics. A key part of his program was that the US should stop promoting regime change in other countries. So, achieving his goals without removing the government in Caracas fitted perfectly with his rhetoric and election promises.
Second, the need for political stability and realising that the Venezuelan opposition lacked the leadership, strength and authority to guarantee political stability in the short term.
Above all, the attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro and Cilia Flores must be understood as a prelude to the attack on Iran. Trump assessed that, by controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the US could risk going to war with Iran without being impacted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, at least in terms of its energy security.
I believe this goes some way to explaining why the temporary constitutional succession, as provided for in the Constitution, has been recognised by the Trump administration, and instead, under coercion, a tutelage relationship has been established with the current Venezuelan government.
Where does this leave the traditional opposition?
The opposition has been left in a quite disconcerted state. Ever since 2002, they have dreamt of a military occupation, on even a larger scale, involving occupying troops and the annihilation of all popular forces. They imagined the occupiers would take them in a helicopter and place them in Miraflores [the presidential palace]. So, all this has left them somewhat out of place.
Nevertheless, they are using all their lobbying mechanisms in the US to try and force an election in Venezuela, believing they will win.
What solidarity do the Venezuelan people need today?
The international left must understand that — whatever view one takes of the government — Venezuela is a country that was militarily invaded, militarily occupied, and subjected to a policy of coercive tutelage. Therefore, the international left’s duty is to denounce this, regardless of whatever government is in power.
I always remember that we were young left-wing activists at the time of the [1989] Panama invasion, and there were few people we sympathised less with than [Panamanian leader] Manuel Noriega. But this was not about Noriega; it was about a sister people being invaded and massacred, and we, Latin American left-wing youth, rose up for months, marching, protesting and so on, against that invasion.
The international left must not discard the struggle for Venezuela’s liberation, because the Venezuelan people will have to wage a struggle for national liberation in the coming months and years.
And that struggle for national liberation from US government tutelage must count on the solidarity of the entire international left and extend beyond the left to those sectors that believe the world cannot become Trump’s world.
Now is the time to raise — with far greater force than ever — our anti-imperialist banners and denounce that they are trampling on international law, they are crushing nation states, they are committing crimes against humanity, such as the genocide in Gaza or the attack on Iran. Regardless of what one may think of the regime in Iran, what is happening is unacceptable.
The struggle against imperialism and the military aggression of empires against peoples has been a historic banner of the left. Today, the cause of humanity demands that we fight.