Petro and the National Front: A Solution or a Trap for Venezuela?
By Alfonso Insuasty RodrĂguez – Aug 17, 2024
On August 15, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in tune with his counterparts Lula Da Silva of Brazil and Joe Biden of the United States, presented a proposal on his X account that has generated intense debate. In his message, Petro stated: “A political solution for Venezuela that brings peace and prosperity to its people depends on Nicolás Maduro. The experience of the Colombian National Front is an experience that, if used transitorily, can assist in a definitive solution… An internal political agreement in Venezuela is the best path to peace. It depends only on Venezuelans.”
At first glance, the proposal appears to be a call for reconciliation and stability in Venezuela. However, a deeper analysis reveals that it is a double-edged message, an “apple with a poisoned heart.”
The National Front, cited by Petro as a reference, was a political agreement between the Liberal and Conservative parties in Colombia, which governed alternately from 1958 to 1974. Petro proposes a model that has historically proven to be detrimental to the interests of the majorities and that could undermine the progress achieved by progressive forces in the region. Undoubtedly, the National Front was an attack on democracy. One can simply review the extensive literature on the subject to find the disadvantages and drawbacks. Here are some of the consequences of the National Front:
Political exclusion: The National Front marginalized other political parties and social movements, limiting democratic participation. This consolidated a two-party system that prevented the emergence of real political alternatives.
Repression of social movements: During this period, the government severely repressed social and student movements, such as the 1968 movement. The state response to any dissidence was violence, perpetuating a cycle of repression.
Concentration of power: The agreement between Liberals and Conservatives perpetuated the concentration of power in the hands of traditional elites, reinforcing exclusionary economic and political structures.
Social inequality: Despite economic growth during this period, social inequality not only persisted but also deepened, generating disparities that continue to affect Colombian society.
Paramilitary violence: The National Front failed to address the root causes of violence in Colombia, facilitating the emergence of paramilitary groups. These groups, often supported by sectors of the state, became key actors in perpetuating the conflict.
Limitations to democracy: Democracy became a façade, with citizen participation limited to a very narrow spectrum of political options. This left as a legacy a rigid and exclusionary political system, where real demands of the people were systematically ignored.
Proposing a similar model for Venezuela is not only a misreading of history but also underestimates the complexity of the Venezuelan situation. As the Argentinian political analyst Claudio Katz points out in an Indymedia article, “elections in territories with oil coveted by the empire are never normal, because they include a geopolitical component of enormous gravity.” Venezuela is no exception; its vast oil wealth makes it a prime target for the US.
Why Latin American Countries Need to Balance Against US Pressure
Following Argentinian sociologist Atilio BorĂłn’s analysis, it is vital to understand that what is at stake in Venezuela is not simply an electoral verdict. The real battle is for control of its vast oil reserves. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: “It’s the oil, stupid.” Washington’s ambition will not be limited to stealing Venezuelan oil; it also has its eyes on the Brazilian pre-salt. Although smaller in comparison to Venezuelan reserves, the pre-salt remains a coveted target.
BorĂłn also emphasizes that the reactivation of the US Fourth Fleet in 2008, shortly after the discovery of the pre-salt, was no coincidence. In the field of geopolitics, coincidences do not exist. Washington, in order to seize Brazilian oil and gas, first needs to break South American unity. Fostering enmity between Brazil and Venezuela is part of this strategy to weaken regional resistance and secure its imperial interests.
Petro’s proposal, far from being a bridge to peace, could become an expeditious route to hand over power to the Venezuelan economic and political elites, guaranteeing the exclusion and repression of the majorities.
These proposals ultimately sharpen the dagger that threatens progressive projects in the region, ironically, including those that the proponents themselves claim to defend and represent.
On the other hand, the crisis of global hegemony and the emergence of a new multipolar order further complicate the situation. This order, dominated by the superpowers of the Northern Hemisphere, leaves Latin America in an “absolute South,” with an extremely limited capacity for influence. Against this backdrop, regional integration is not just an option, it is an urgent necessity for the countries of the region to defend their interests and avoid being trapped in a perpetual cycle of underdevelopment.
Petro’s proposal is not only historically and politically imprudent but also ignores the geopolitical complexities underlying the situation in Venezuela and the region. It is imperative that Latin America accelerate its integration and strengthen its cooperative ties to resist the onslaught of an empire that will not relent in its attempt to appropriate natural resources and undermine democratic advances in the region.
Featured image: Colombian President Gustavo Petro (left) and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro (right). Photo: WFLA.
(Telesur)
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/SC/SL
