VenEconomy: Venezuela Should Avoid Designation as State Sponsor of Terrorism From the Editors of VenEconomy Latin American Herald Tribune June 3, 2015
Michael Rowan, a longtime collaborator of VenEconomy, wrote an analysis for the monthly issue of June on the controversial meetings held by U.S. and Venezuela senior officials in a bid to normalize relations and restore ambassadors in both countries. Rowan believes that it would have been interesting to hear what they said behind closed doors, though perhaps "all the flies on the wall would have been shocked to death for what they heard."
Rowan, as many political analysts, wonders whether the negotiator of Barack Obama, Tom Shannon, will normalize relations between the U.S. and Venezuela through negotiations with the president of the Parliament, Diosdado Cabello.
He claims that "if the accounts published in recent years matter, and they may not after all, concerns of both the U.S. and Venezuela are then on the table."
He explains that there are the interests of the U.S. on the one hand, which orbit around the issues of national security, terrorism, drug-trafficking and associations with terrorists, as well as around the values of the U.S., which include the political prisoners, human rights violations and the absence of transparent elections in Venezuela.
And on the other, there are the existing fears of Venezuela, that is to say, if rulers ensure their perpetuation in power, if national sovereignty is maintained, if its designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is prevented and if the criminal sanctions imposed against more than a dozen government officials are lifted.
Rowan argues that talking about the "economic war" is unlikely, because both parties know that this is a public relations stunt for domestic consumption. Putting the economic war on the table would mean that the U.S. has succumbed to the magical realism, before starting the talks. In his view, the U.S. is negotiating to protect its interests based on "realpolitik" and values that are about hope.
Rowan says that realpolitik comes in first place. The U.S. has military bases or military staff in more than half of the 192 countries of the planet. It participates in the business of all the others. Therefore, the standard operating procedure for the U.S. is to continue with its interests – security – and commitment to its values, as an obligation towards human rights or democracy.
Rowan says that when the U.S. believes that its security is threatened, it takes action, and frequently finds itself alone, acting unilaterally. And thinks Venezuela would have something to worry about. Another explanation would be that Venezuela is doing the same as did Fidel Castro, who took advantage of the same fear of being harassed by the U.S. so he could economically and socially repress the Cuban population for half a century. Now both the late Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro have done the same thing for 17 years. And it's working.
So, what is the truth? Is it possible an American-led intervention in Venezuela or not?
Another highlight in Rowan's article is the possibility for the U.S. to designate Venezuela as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. He explains that this would ultimately destroy Venezuela within a week, because international banks would refuse to engage in transactions with a country designated as State Sponsor of Terrorism, due to fears of huge fines from the U.S Department of the Treasury.
The designation of Venezuela as a State Sponsor of Terrorism would seriously limit or prevent all transactions in dollars (oil, imports, everything) and would seize funds from the Government of Venezuela in American territory (which extends to Europe and Asia, according to the interpretation of the banks), thus giving rise to a frozen and dollar-dependent Venezuelan economy.
What is even worse for Venezuela's regime is that to get rid of this designation, it is necessary that a possible new government doesn't have any relationship with the government designated as such. This eliminates the possibility of appointing an unconditional person as President to continue doing things as before. The party would be over for the regime with the designation as State Sponsor of Terrorism, so that's the reason it should avoid it at all costs.
____________________
|