Photo by Andrés Silva

Underneath the appearance of “normalcy” in the ongoing relationship between Venezuela and the US lies a manifest asymmetry of power. Even commentators from mainstream international news outlets frame their analyses by drawing attention to the proverbial US gun held to acting President Delcy Rodríguez’s head and, by implication, to the whole Chavista movement. That movement, founded by Hugo Chávez and carried forward by Nicolás Maduro, has broadly united behind her.

The US attack of January 3 killed over 100 persons and succeeded in kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, an elected member of the National Assembly. (For a petition demanding their freedom, click here.) But it failed to produce regime change or state collapse. Instead, the political and constitutional transfer of power remains intact along with the powerful constellation of grassroots organisations that sustain the Bolivarian Revolution.

The Chavista leadership has prioritised the preservation of the state as a rearguard base for future struggle. “Surviving in certain historical circumstances,” according to José A. Amesty Rivera in Resumen Latinoamericano, “can also be a form of resistance.” The central question, then, is not whether Venezuela has made concessions, but whether those concessions represent capitulation or a strategy for preserving sovereignty under extreme duress.

Diplomacy of peace

The Chavista leadership avoided direct military confrontation with the US. The consequences would have been catastrophic, potentially leaving tens or even hundreds of thousands dead, destroying vital infrastructure, and inflicting........

© CounterPunch