What do you mean with change in that context? Guaidó actually taking power and then preparing legit elections? Nobody knows, maybe never.
What do you mean with change in that context? Guaidó actually taking power and then preparing legit elections? Nobody knows, maybe never.
Maduro took control of the country in a coup. The legitimate government has been overthrown. That's why the analogy works.As French, I do not agree with that anology at all, it's apples and oranges ! France was an occupied country and the new government of Vichy were nazi sympathizers. The Allies recognies De Gaulle as the legitimate head of government because he represented the real and free France. This situation had nothing to do with Venezuela, that's a very poor analogy.
Russia is backing Maduro. They just sent a bunch of mercs into the country. It's not "hypocrisy" to back one side or the other- it's what most nations are going to be doing because "being right in the neutral middle" is not going to be a position you can take- you will be asked to freeze assets. If you do it, you're supporting the opposition. If you don't, you're supporting Maduro. There is no avoiding the question, you must make the choice. And so nations are choosing.I'm not supporting Maduro here. I think I've been pretty clear about it. But I won't support the hypocrisy of some foreign powers who support dictatorships and/or governments with terrible human rights records on one hand, and request democracy in other countries on the other one ! I don't want the US to be part of this peace process ( if we can call it that way ). Their despicable track record in the region disqualify de facto as mediator. A role Europe and Canada could have played, but they have followed - unfortunately - the US path. That's a mistake in my humble opinion.
If there is an analogy to be made here, it's Syria. I'm afraid this power move from the US will push each side in Venezuela into a corner : Maduro will feel this is a coup and Russia and China feel the same way ; and Gaido will feel he is in his rights to get the power as he is backed by US, Canada and Europe. This is recipe for disaster. Very concerned with what could happen next...
I have and I am somewhat familiar with US interference around the globe (I won't claim to be an expert). However, you clearly do not understand why Guaido isn't merely a self proclaimed president and why it's a legitimate claim.And you seem to have not read my post either. Again, I don't want any US interferences in this process. Maybe you're not familiar with the various actions of several US administrations in region.
And I don't like the Double Standards, that's all. My country France for example can call for free elections in Venezuela one day, but not say a thing about Saudi Arabia because weapons deals in the making. We had no issue selling a high tech ship the Mistral to Egypt despite their strocious human rights and democratic record.
So I'm not supporting Maduro here. But I won't support Gaido either. There are ways to push for new elections with mediations that are more neutral than the US... Recognizing Gaido is just throwing oil on fire and will only complicate things.
He actually was though. In 2015 he was elected to Venezuela's National Assembly, and all deputies there have a 5 year term. The same National Assembly voted him to be President of the National Assembly from January 5th 2019 through January 4th 2020, and per the Venezuelan Constitution (article 233) the President of the National Assembly becomes the interim-President if there is no President, which there arguably isn't due the the elections in which Maduro was elected being a bunch of shit. His and the National Assembly's claim that he's the interim-President falls perfectly in line with Venezuela's constitution.
But that's not on the opposition figures, that's on the man who seized control of the country using force and destroyed democratic institutions. It's like saying Leia is the actual problem, not the Emperor.
Good photo (needs to be updated with the EU countries ultimatum)
Showing that the US is not alone. Look at all those Far Right Nations supporting Guaido
However, you clearly do not understand why Guaido isn't merely a self proclaimed president and why it's a legitimate claim.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK
(it isn't)
the article in their constitution that keeps getting tossed around has been intentionally misread by guaido, it is a) it is only relevant if maduro "abandons his duties" and b) power would be asserted by the vice president which last time i checked, guaido is not
It says that the lack of a president can by due to many factors, like the National Assembly decreeing abandonment of his duties. Another article states he must guarantee the rights and freedom of his people, for example, and he must uphold the Constitution, which he most certainly did not. The popular revoke of his mandate is also in article 233 as a cause for declaring a lack of a president.(it isn't)
the article in their constitution that keeps getting tossed around has been intentionally misread by guaido, it is a) it is only relevant if maduro "abandons his duties" and b) power would be asserted by the vice president which last time i checked, guaido is not
This is in Canada. Regina, Saskatchewan. City Hall. Photo on the right are those opposed to Canada supporting Guaido. Photo on the left are those supporting Guaido.
White people opposing Canada's support, Venezuelans/Latino/Latinas supporting Canada support of guaido. Not a shock
Why do we need to back anyone? Why do we need to intervene at all? Why not let other countries do something instead of depending on the USA to do it?
I'm not arguing with you on that, he is illegitimate.Attitudes like this is why we get Rohingya genocides and no one bats an eye, and it will keep happening. It's not even like the US is intervening in any major way. They are simply declaring Maduro an illegitimate president (which he is–no lies detected).
Cuba's support and control over Maduro's security and paramilitary forces are well known. Any violence and intimidation against U.S. diplomatic personnel, Venezuela's democratic leader, Juan Guiado, or the National Assembly itself would represent a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response.
Attitudes like this is why we get Rohingya genocides and no one bats an eye, and it will keep happening. It's not even like the US is intervening in any major way. They are simply declaring Maduro an illegitimate president (which he is–no lies detected).
Again, "simply declaring" has resulted in thousands of victims in the past. Without a single troop on the ground. And if in case that the US using their diplomats as bait, appointing someone with history of war crimes and backing coups and death squads isn't suspicious to you that unlike many other countries, who are calling for dialogue an mediation to solve the crisis, the US is obviously pushing for a violent outcome, then you're fooling yourself. This is precisely because we should be thinking about the people first, about solving things and not promoting a war.
maybe maduro giving up power isn't the best resolution in the short term if the alternatives are civil war or an american intervention
One has to admit who's backing either side makes it hard to figure out what's really going on. On the one you got Russia and China and on the other you got Brazil, Israel and the US, none of which are all that grand from human rights perspectives, especially considering Brazil and US's current leadership. And then you hear Venezuelans on both sides saying "no, the OTHER side are the real fake Venezuelans" (the pro-Maduros are bots, the pro-Guaidos are right-wing, rich expats), and it's just... a mess.
Like PoC were being burned alive there by racist anti-Maduro people a while back, so it's not as if everyone against him is innocent. But then, since WW2 and maybe arguably the Korean War, American interventionism has really helped no one...
maybe maduro giving up power isn't the best resolution in the short term if the alternatives are civil war or an american intervention
trying to force assad out didn't do the people of syria or the surrounding countries any favors
What's this lunatic saying? Does he want to invade Cuba?
Then what is left is the status quo as dialogue will accomplish nothing because Maduro will not weaken his grasp on power because he knows that is what is keeping him alive/out of prison.
???? I specifically said it's hard to tell which Venezuelans to listen to. Again, both sides are outright saying the other side is lying or fake. I hate both sides takes, but quite literally it's what's going on.
Sure, it makes it hard if you simply willfully ignore all the other countries and organizations that are backing Guaidó and also all the testimonies from Venezuelan people...
I have and I am somewhat familiar with US interference around the globe (I won't claim to be an expert). However, you clearly do not understand why Guaido isn't merely a self proclaimed president and why it's a legitimate claim.
Clearly you are blind to the obvious US interference. I mean John Bolton of all people involved in this ? How worst can it be ? One of the more hawkish neocon involved ! Clearly Neocons have the best interest of people of Venezuela at heart ... of course the Oil reserves are pure coincidence in that equation. Here is an interesting article from the Post on Bolton involvement in that US power move :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ntervention-venezuela/?utm_term=.732f41ea8a7f
Here is an article on the special envoy, a true peacemaker...
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/01/26/americas/elliott-abrams-venezuela-special-envoy-career/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/
Somewhat uncharacteristically, the Trump administration is attempting to make limited use of American non-military power, in conjunction with allies, to defend democratic values and encourage a peaceful transition of power from within. Looming over their machinations is the real danger that widespread violence could erupt at any time, damaging the Venezuelan opposition and threatening the lives of American diplomats in the country.
A few days into this stage of the crisis, the Trump administration genuinely doesn't know which side will win. The United States wants Maduro to go and would be happy to see him choose exile in a third country. But the Trump team is not committing the United States to enforcing that wish.
A lot depends on what the Venezuelan military does. The senior administration official speculated that lower-level military officers — unlike their politically connected leadership — might not want to kill for Maduro, and that Maduro might not want to test that proposition by ordering them to do so.
Meanwhile, Mnuchin and Ross are reaching out to international financial institutions and corporations, asking them to deny Maduro access to any Venezuelan national assets in their possession. Mnuchin and Ross are also warning governments and corporations that more U.S. economic sanctions on Maduro and his clique are likely coming, although no final decisions have been made.
The Trump team knows that using limited diplomatic and economic pressure tools will have limited effect on the ground. There's also a risk that the administration's actions will feed Maduro's claims that the entire scheme is a U.S.-led regime change operation. But officials said the United States was following the opposition's lead and was operating in conjunction with several regional actors.
It's true that Trump's new Venezuela policy — based on diplomatic coordination in defense of democracy, rule of law, human rights and principled opposition to authoritarian corruption — is somewhat inconsistent with this administration's approach to countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, etc.
You need to work on your reading comprehension, never have I touched on that subject. I bolded the part of your post about Guaido and responded merely about him and the legitimacy of his - and the democratically elected National Assembly's - claim. You should also read the links you share better, they don't serve your purpose as much as you might think (and to be clear, I'm always very weary of USA's foreign intervention).Clearly you are blind to the obvious US interference. I mean John Bolton of all people involved in this ? How worst can it be ? One of the more hawkish neocon involved ! Clearly Neocons have the best interest of people of Venezuela at heart ... of course the Oil reserves are pure coincidence in that equation. Here is an interesting article from the Post on Bolton involvement in that US power move :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ntervention-venezuela/?utm_term=.732f41ea8a7f
Here is an article on the special envoy, a true peacemaker...
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/01/26/americas/elliott-abrams-venezuela-special-envoy-career/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/
Here are some quotes from your WaPo article
Did you even read the article?
You need to work on your reading comprehension, never have I touched on that subject. I bolded the part of your post about Guaido and responded merely about him and the legitimacy of his - and the democratically elected National Assembly's - claim. You should also read the links you share better, they don't serve your purpose as much as you might think.
If I read the articlr ? Are you stupid or what ? I posted the article. So if you read it, it's in line with what I been saying for several posts : the US intervention in Venezuela affairs. And it's clear as day, ( as if it wasn't obvious before...).
Since dialog is the only way he could stay alive or out of jail.
There are this options:
He refuses anything, war explodes and he either is killed or imprisoned, and the "US imperialism" takes over either way.
He commit to mediation, with amnisti in the table, to call either for elections or for reforms. Guaidó already said it's an option, Maduro already said it's an option, however the US keeps pushing for something else, weird isn't it.
Piecake said all that needs to be said about the articles, as they show a much less hawkish and warmongering posture from the US administration than what you make it out to be. Which doesn't mean anyone should think US has no shady vested interests or that their involvement was, is and might be all roses. I don't even think anyone has been taking that position here. Maybe it will eventually escalate into military response, I don't know, but the articles show a diplomatic stance, to the point of the WaPo writer using the word "uncharacteristically".I think you clearly did not read those articles. As the Post article CLEARLY lays out the discussion between the Trump administration and Guaido BEFORE the self proclamation move. This was a coordinate action with Pompeo and Bolton at the helm on the US side.
Again, this is a proof - if needed - that the US are involved in this Crisis. You can point out at the legitimacy of Guaido as legitimate president all you want to, the fact he is supported by Neocons in Washington. And that's bad if you lool at history of Neocons track record in the region.
And if you read the second article, you will see that the special envoy for the Venezuela crisis,Elliot Abrams, has a dark past with deep involvement in the Iran - Contra scandal of the 80s.
So I've been consistent with my concerns with US involvement in this crisis throughout the thread. And the articles are only proving that further.
Indeed, but violence against US diplomats could escalate matters significantly.Bolton has been in office for like a year. If he had his way Iran would be a smoking crater by now.
There are millions of Venezuelan refugees right now and the power grabs are recent.maybe maduro giving up power isn't the best resolution in the short term if the alternatives are civil war or an american intervention
trying to force assad out didn't do the people of syria or the surrounding countries any favors
I don't think this is the top priority on the minds of Venezuelans but ok.
Why do we need to back anyone? Why do we need to intervene at all? Why not let other countries do something instead of depending on the USA to do it?
Indeed, but violence against US diplomats could escalate matters significantly.
However on Saturday evening, as the deadline was due to expire, Venezuela's foreign ministry said it would withdraw the expulsion order, and instead allow 30 days for the two sides to set up "interest offices" in each others' countries.
Interest offices are used when countries do not have formal diplomatic relations, but want to have a basic level of contact to represent their interests.
Because you will be asked to do things like freeze Maduros accounts. And then, you must make a choice. Either you freeze the accounts, siding with the opposition, or you don't, siding with Maduro.Why do we need to back anyone? Why do we need to intervene at all? Why not let other countries do something instead of depending on the USA to do it?