By Martin Pulgar Piñero on June 22, 2019
A few days ago, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, expressed via Twitter his obvious discomfort and the need to investigate possible corruption given the alleged diversion and mismanagement of resources provided to take care of Venezuelan migrants in Cucuta, Colombia, by the political team of self-proclaimed interim president of Venezuela, Juan Guaido.
The tweet posted by Almagro refers to the disclosure by the PanAm Post on June 14, which raised accusations regarding the resources donated for the so-called “humanitarian aid” that was in reality an operation aimed at justifying an intervention against Venezuela on behalf of the United States, the European Union and governments of the Lima Group. This revelation was preceded by a Washington Post “leak” on June 4 when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a recorded conversation, complained that the Venezuelan opposition is so divided that they have about “40 candidates” who want to be president
The two situations seem to make public the evident discomfort of the organizers (let’s call it puppeteers) of the operation against Venezuela and against its socialist government headed by President Nicolas Maduro.
At this time what Almagro is doing is to call for an investigation into the corruption as a way to distance himself from the diversion, mismanagement and wholesale theft of the funds carried out by the political leaders of the opposition whom he is one of the “founding fathers.”
Moreover, the operation against Venezuela shows the plan of the operation being so amateurish resulting in an unprecedented failure and damaging the reputation of political operators in the United States, the European Union (headed by Spain), Colombia, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and other less visible but undeniable protagonists of a “regime change” maneuver and an attempt to destroy the sovereignty of an independent country.
But what is behind Mr. Almagro’s concern about the funds allocated for the “humanitarian aid” when he knows full well that those funds were indeed allocated to boost and carry out a coup d’état? Do the funds allocated for a coup d’état, as those handed over to the “Interim President” (without any institution or state system backing it), will be able to be audited at all so as to justify the concern of the main puppeteers of the operation against Venezuela?
Right wing think tanks have been discussing how Venezuelans are not capable to manage the vast wealth granted by their providence. Thus, its sovereignty must be supervised so that others (better qualified and foreign) manage such resources.
The denunciation against the opposition elite for inefficiency and corruption and the media construction that a “Chavista leadership” is incapable of governing because they are socialist, corrupt, human rights offenders and so on appears to be the justification for some agency, committee, group or commission to rule the destiny of Venezuela as a nation. This is to institutionalize an International Committee as those existing now in countries devastated by civil conflicts or natural disasters.
This is a case where so much concern is nothing more than a violation of a country’s sovereignty by justification to implement an international institution that—following the same model of the “International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala”—ends up undermining the State’s capacity to make its own decisions. This new agency would then have veto power in its position of being the supervisor of the interests of the “Neoliberal International Community”?
It is worth recalling that the United States has decided that Venezuela—and the whole Caribbean area including Central America—is a zone with a lack of institutional capacity to solve with autonomy and independence its domestic problems and future challenges. Thus, its government policies need to be supervised.
The current content of the countries of the region, as Venezuela’s political and economic crisis, migration in Central America and Mexico, social unrest in Haiti, strengthening of drug trafficking in Colombia, among other situations prove to the U.S. ruling elite that it is impossible to have stable and self-standing governments, raising the need of creating a zone of limited sovereignty controlled by the United States.
The expressed concern of OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, as well as that coming from other international spokespeople about the policy against Venezuela, seems to result in the need of intervention, territorial control and subsequent government tutelage. They do not want Chavism but they don’t want their own agents that they created and nourished either, they want a direct control, without intermediaries.
In the face of this latest denunciation and exposure, they seem to be telling their puppets that they are about to be left high in dry.
Source: Mision Verdad, translation, Resumen Latinoamericano, North America bureau