Following our Foreign Ministry’s statement, last Friday, on the situation in Venezuela, on which we have already commented (February 16), there have been several statements by other nations and organizations.
Unsurprisingly, Venezuela’s fellow Alba members have been as steadfast as our own government in their support of President Nicolás Maduro’s government’s efforts to withstand “acts of destabilisation.” As we suggested on Sunday, Vene-zuela’s diplomats must be hard at work.
The Union of South American Nations (Unasur) has similarly rejected “the attempt to destabilise the democratic order based on the legitimacy of the popular vote,” but has, importantly, also appealed to “the different political and social forces to seek dialogue to find peaceful solutions, within the framework of constitutional and juridical order.”
There have been other statements by countries not in the Alba or PetroCaribe camps and these have generally presented more nuanced positions on the Bolivarian government’s reaction to events. Whilst also expressing concern, condemning the eruption of deadly violence in Venezuela and calling for political dialogue to resolve the crisis, they have also unequivocally championed respect for the rule of law and human rights.
Chile’s outgoing centre-right president, Sebastián Piñera, for example, saw fit to respond to an accusation by President Maduro that he was meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs, to the effect that Chile was respectful of the people’s right to “self-determination” and was committed, along with the other signatories to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights and members of Unasur, to “the promotion, defence and protection of democracy, the rule of law, fundamental liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of opinion and freedom to demonstrate.”
In the same vein, Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird, called on all parties to undertake “a respectful, fulsome dialogue, respecting the right to freedom of expression and ensuring the security of all citizens,” stating that “respect for the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are fundamental to a successful democracy” and that “the voices of all citizens must be included in decision-making processes to ensure a stable and constructive dialogue.”
In contrast, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines issued a statement fulsome in its solidarity with the government and people of Venezuela which, whilst making the right noises about peace, dialogue and law and order, omits to allude to human rights and basic freedoms. It is a subtle but important distinction in the Venezuelan context.
Since Prime Minister Gonsalves is the sitting chairman of Caricom and since most of Caricom is now beholden to Venezuela for oil through PetroCaribe and dependent on other petro-fuelled handouts – therefore extremely fearful of any hint that the Venezuelan government might collapse, even as the country’s economy is going down the tubes – it is only logical, if rather disappointing, that the statement released by the Secretariat on Monday should have been completely devoid of nuance.
The statement is brief, only three paragraphs long. The first paragraph expresses concern over the violence and resulting deaths; the third, quite rightly, “calls on all parties to take the necessary steps to refrain from any further action that would hinder a peaceful resolution of the differences and a return to peace and calm.” That should have sufficed.
The second paragraph, however, goes beyond calling for respect for democracy and the rule of law, which would apply to all parties in the Venezuelan imbroglio, to urge “respect for the democratically elected Government of the Bolivarian Republic. It then goes on to offer a schoolteacher-ish lecture on how grievances should be pursued in what might presumably be construed as polite, democratic society: “In all democracies, citizens have the right to air their views and differences, however, this must be done within the constitutional framework and not through violent demonstrations. No democratic society can reasonably pursue disorder or any unwarranted subversion of democratic institutions.”
Now, whilst a balanced, objective statement would ideally invoke universal principles pertaining to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and would make no suggestion as to which side is to blame for the disturbances in Venezuela, the Caricom statement betrays a rush to judgment in expressing support for the Venezuelan government before all the facts relating to the origins of the violence in Caracas are known. In so doing, Caricom has, unfortunately, departed from any semblance of concerned neutrality and the diplomatic sophistication for which it was once known, leaving no room for doubt as to which side its bread is buttered – and by whom.
