sovereignty

Pointe aux Sables, Mauritius – “At one funeral, we scattered sand from Chagos into an elder’s tomb to honour his unfulfilled wish to breathe his last in his homeland,” says Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos Refugees Group.

For elderly Chagossians displaced from their Indian Ocean homeland decades ago, delays to a treaty allowing their return are raising fears that they may never see the islands again.

The agreement, signed by Britain and Mauritius in May 2025, would allow resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia, which would remain a military base. But it has yet to enter into force amid opposition from US President Donald Trump.

“We remain unshaken by Trump’s interference in the Chagos deal,” Bancoult says.

“The 2019 ICJ advisory opinion in favour of the archipelago’s return to Mauritius has restored our dignity and faith in our rights as native Chagossians.”

The Chagos archipelago, a group of islands in the Indian Ocean, was separated from Mauritius by Britain in 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence. Britain later established a military base with the US on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the group.

Between 1968 and 1973, Britain removed an estimated 1,400 to 1,700 Chagossians from the islands. Many were resettled in Mauritius and the Seychelles, with others later moving to the United Kingdom. British authorities also made it illegal to remain on or return to the islands without permission.

“If Trump wants to meddle in this matter, well, let him,” Bancoult says. “We’ve had the 2019 ICJ [International Court of Justice] advisory opinion, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s 2021 judgement, and the 2025 UK-Mauritius treaty providing for Mauritius to exercise sovereignty over the archipelago. International law is squarely on our side.”

Signed on May 22, 2025, the treaty provides for Mauritius to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, while allowing the UK to exercise rights over the Diego Garcia military base for an initial 99-year period. It also allows Mauritius to arrange for the resettlement of Chagossians on islands other than Diego Garcia. The treaty has not yet entered into force.

In April, the UK government told Parliament that the legislation needed to implement the agreement could not complete its passage during the 2024–26 parliamentary session. The session ended on April 29, meaning the bill made no further progress.

In January, Trump criticised the agreement, calling it an “act of great stupidity ” and questioning whether it adequately protected the Diego Garcia military base.

The issue returned to the diplomatic agenda in September. On September 21, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the UK would work with Mauritius and the US on a way forward that secures the operation of Diego Garcia and protects UK national security.

On September 26, Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam travelled to the UK for talks with British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and other officials on the Chagos issue. He remains in London, with the Mauritian government saying the discussions would cover recent developments concerning the archipelago.

For Bancoult, the central question is whether elderly Chagossians will live long enough to see the treaty’s promises fulfilled.

“Chagossians born on the archipelago are now aged between 58 and 100. We are growing old, and we have lost several Chagossian elders this year alone,” he says.

For younger Chagossians, the consequences are also cultural.

Chrisyl Wong-Hang-Sun, a PhD researcher in anthropology at the University of Edinburgh, says years of displacement and migration are making it harder to preserve Chagossian culture.

“During my fieldwork, many diaspora members expressed concerns over cultural loss, such as words in Chagossian Creole and recipes that are difficult to recreate abroad,” she says. “Descendants of Chagossians, myself included, long to know the islands of their relatives and ancestors.”

The dispute has also exposed political differences among Chagossians.

“The actions of both the British and Mauritian governments have resulted in very nuanced and differing political opinions among Chagossians across the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles,” Wong-Hang-Sun says.

The Chagos Refugees Group is at odds with UK-based second-generation Chagossian Misley Mandarin and his supporters, who favour resettlement under British rather than Mauritian sovereignty and have received backing from Reform UK.

Wong-Hang-Sun says those differences should be recognised as negotiations continue.

Both governments, she says, need to “find ways to prioritise and engage with the Chagossian diaspora as a whole”.

Mauritius keeps talks largely private

Mauritius has disclosed little publicly about the substance of the latest talks on Chagos.

At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Foreign Minister Dhananjay Ramful reiterated Mauritius’ position that its sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago was “non-negotiable”. He also described the 2025 agreement as a vindication of international law and said Mauritius was committed to diplomacy and dialogue over the issue.

Beyond official statements and communiques, the Mauritian government has provided few details about the substance of the current discussions.

International relations consultant Bruno Donat, who has previously worked at the UN, says Mauritius should focus on sustained engagement with diplomatic partners, including the African Union, small island states, the Commonwealth Secretariat and sympathetic voices in the US Congress.

“Being in New York corridors for a photo” is not the priority, Donat says. Sustained engagement, he argues, can build pressure on Washington and prevent the issue from remaining unresolved indefinitely.

The Chagos Refugees Group has pursued a similar approach. In June, two months after the treaty stalled, its members travelled to the UK to lobby representatives of British political parties, with the exception of Reform UK.

The unresolved question of Diego Garcia

But Diego Garcia remains the most contentious part of the agreement.

Lalit, a Mauritian political organisation that has campaigned for decades for the closure of the base, opposes its continued military use. Lindsey Collen of Lalit says the treaty, as it stood in April, would have kept the base open and brought Mauritius into a closer relationship with the US military presence on the island.

“In addition to the moral responsibility, we have the knowledge that we might become a target for self-defence if our land is used this way,” she says.

Collen is also concerned about a new partnership between the Mauritius Police Force and the New Mexico National Guard, as well as what she describes as the “enormous military-looking buildings” of the new US embassy in Mauritius.

Donat argues that the treaty could instead give Mauritius greater leverage over how Diego Garcia is used.

“Mauritius has publicly stated that the strikes launched from Diego Garcia against Iran breached international law,” he says. “That is not the position of a government staying silent to protect a lease payment.”

For Bancoult, those wider strategic questions are secondary to the need to ensure that elderly Chagossians have the chance to return to their homeland during their lifetimes.

“We are opposed to war, ethically, but we are also running out of time.”

The Chagos Refugees Group hopes to soon celebrate the 101st birthday of one of its members.

“God willing, he’ll stay with us for more years,” Bancoult says.

John F. Kennedy receives Betancourt in the Oval Office on February 19, 1963. White House photograph by Abbie Rowe, JFK Presidential Library and Museum.

In 1898, the United States entered Cuba promising to liberate a nation; the subsequent occupation and the Platt Amendment ultimately granted it the right to intervene in the country’s affairs. A century before chavismo, Juan Vicente Gómez found a different formula: domestic order, foreign capital, and oil, all while leaving the citizenry out of the equation. Rafael Osío Cabrices and Marcus Golding have revisited both precedents to reflect on the Venezuela that would emerge after January 3. These two mirrors are uncomfortable, yet they are not the only ones; a third exists—also born of the relationship between Venezuela and the US—though it is based on a different idea of ​​how to build stability.

During the 1950s, Venezuelan social democrat leader Rómulo Betancourt wrote from exile to convince Washington that its policy toward Latin America was based on a flawed premise. While military dictatorships might declare themselves anti-communist and guarantee a certain level of stability, repression, inequality, and a lack of civic participation paved the way for the very radicalization the US wished to contain. A democracy capable of enacting social reforms could serve as a more reliable ally.

This wasn’t Betancourt’s idea alone. Within the US government, there were already officials who viewed reformist forces as a more effective bulwark against communism. Betancourt’s own contribution lay elsewhere: articulating this argument from within Latin America and attempting to prove its validity while in power. Research by Steven Schwartzberg shows that this approach had begun even before the long exile triggered by the 1948 coup.

Upon returning to Venezuela after January 23, 1958, Betancourt did not ask the White House to build Venezuelan democracy. The major political parties agreed on rules for coexistence and the country held elections, which he won. His government undertook agrarian, educational, and social reforms starting in 1959, all while facing military conspiracies, guerrilla violence, and hostility from neighboring dictatorships. There were abuses, restrictions on civil liberties, and incomplete results. It was not a conflict-free democracy, but a democracy struggling to survive.

Both voting and finding a way out of the economic crisis remain priorities that oil alone cannot resolve.

That experience bolstered Betancourt’s argument before Washington. A State Department report from the time described Venezuela as a hemispheric leader in promoting social reform and economic development within a constitutional framework. This foreign alliance rested on a domestic political foundation: it did not rely solely on oil or on a shared stance against a common enemy.

The Cuban Revolution had made this discussion more urgent since January 1959. Upon arriving at the White House in 1961, John F. Kennedy understood that anti-communism alone was insufficient, and he found an exceptional partner in Betancourt. The Alliance for Progress sought to link development, social reform, and representative democracy. When Kennedy visited Venezuela in December 1961, the two governments issued a joint declaration framing economic cooperation within the context of “the effective practice of representative democracy.” Democracy was not a destination to be reached only when conditions became more favorable. It was an integral part of the journey itself.

1961 versus 2026

We can’t idealize that era. The Alliance for Progress yielded uneven results, and the US continued to tolerate dictatorships when it served its interests. Years later, Betancourt would welcome Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on human rights—as Guillermo Ramos Flamerich notes—precisely because such a stance had never been a constant in US foreign policy, which has historically oscillated between democratic values ​​and the immediate benefits of partnering with governments capable of maintaining order.

That tension has returned. Democratization expert Thomas Carothers argues that the Trump administration has departed from five decades of bipartisan US commitment to promoting democracy, adopting policies that favor autocratic regimes instead. Other intellectual figures such as Ricardo Hausmann and Paul Krugman have also questioned the direction of the process: Hausmann warned that if Trump does not facilitate the transition, Venezuelans will have to oppose his strategy; Krugman criticized the agreement with former members of the Maduro government while the democratic opposition is sidelined.

For her part, María Corina Machado continues to regard Trump as a “key ally” but calls for a democratic transition. Nor does Venezuelan society appear willing to trade its vote for a promise of stability: an in-person poll cited by the Financial Times found greater optimism following Maduro’s removal on January 3, but also revealed that the majority wanted free elections in 2026. After the electoral fraud of July 28, 2024, both voting and finding a way out of the economic crisis remain priorities that oil alone cannot resolve.

On July 24, 2026, Donald Trump stated in the Oval Office that Venezuela was “not yet” ready to hold elections. He praised the “fantastic work” of Delcy Rodríguez and linked his assessment of her to the volume of oil the country is shipping—according to the Republican president—to the US. On September 2, he reiterated that Venezuelans were not ready, while Rodríguez avoided setting an election date during a press conference focused on oil deals.

The solution, however, does not lie in waiting for Trump to become Kennedy. Betancourt did not simply wait for a sympathetic US president, either.

The difference compared to 1961 lies in more than just words. Kennedy and Betancourt framed their cooperation within a shared democratic commitment. Current rhetoric allows oil interests to advance in the present while democracy waits for an undated future. This does not mean Washington has permanently abandoned the idea of ​​Venezuelan elections, but it does reveal its priorities: barrels can be counted, legitimacy can be deferred.

This exemplifies what I termed “asymmetric reconstruction” in a previous article for CEBRI: the recovery of certain economic and geopolitical capabilities, while institutions, rights, and public wellbeing progress at a different pace. Here, the warnings of Osío Cabrices and Golding converge. An intervention can displace the actors who fought for democracy; an opening of the oil sector can coexist with opaque deals, unelected authorities, and power structures that have learned to survive by switching partners.

The solution, however, does not lie in waiting for Trump to become Kennedy. Betancourt did not simply wait for a sympathetic US president, either. He organized a political party, built consensus within Venezuela, formulated a vision for the country, and then sought to alter Washington’s calculations. He understood that while a nation like ours cannot dictate the priorities of a major power, it can present itself to that power as a political actor rather than merely as available territory.

The United States’ best ally will not be the most obedient Venezuela.

Venezuela can once again become a solid ally of the United States. To achieve this, it requires competitive elections with a set date; institutions capable of protecting rights, providing services, and managing resources; and an economy that transforms investment into a better life for its citizens. Oil-driven growth can help. It is no substitute for any of that.

It also requires a mature international relationship. Cooperating with the United States should not mean ceding to Washington the decision of who governs Venezuela or when its citizens are ready to vote. Sovereignty does not consist of isolating oneself from the world. It consists of participating in it without losing one’s identity.

History offers three possibilities: the tutelage experienced by Cuba starting in 1898, the order-without-citizenship of the Gómez era, and the democratic alliance Betancourt sought to build with Kennedy. None can be replicated exactly as they were at the time. Yet, we can still decide which model we wish to emulate.

The United States’ best ally will not be the most obedient Venezuela. It will be the Venezuela that regains legitimacy in the eyes of Venezuelans themselves.

Trump has wanted a foothold in Greenland for some time, as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in a warming Arctic.

Denmark has hailed a “binding” deal by United States President Donald Trump to give Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security and bar Russian and Chinese military bases from the Arctic territory.

But Denmark and Greenland – an autonomous Danish territory – said on Saturday that any deal with the US would not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty, and the two countries would sign the agreement next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“A long period of uncertainty will hopefully be replaced by a binding agreement that strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thereby our shared security within NATO and Europe – while respecting the [Danish] Kingdom’s red lines,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a social media post.

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has repeatedly insisted that Washington needed to control Greenland for strategic reasons, alarming NATO ally Denmark and sparking fierce pushback from the alliance.

Key details of the agreement ⁠have not been made public, including the scale of the US military presence in the self-governing Danish territory and whether any formal power over foreign policy and resources would be ceded to Washington.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the agreement “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

‘I have mixed feelings’

But in Greenland’s capital Nuuk, residents had mixed feelings.

“I don’t know exactly what the agreement is or what has been signed. But whenever the US and Trump are mentioned, I have mixed feelings. I’m not entirely comfortable with how much attention Greenland has right now,” Soren Kreutzmann, a 29-year-old hairdresser, told the AFP news agency.

“We hope the leaders have made a good agreement, because our country needs to be protected, both from the air and sea. Denmark had not given that enough attention for many years,” said Bibbi Kleist Jepsen, a 64-year-old educator.

Trump, who had previously said the US needs “ownership” of Greenland, announced that Washington would immediately start building up a large military presence in the territory.

“From now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval”, he said.

Trump has repeatedly warned of Russia and China trying to establish a foothold in Greenland as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in the warming Arctic region. The State Department left no doubt that they would not be allowed to do so.

“This agreement guarantees that China and Russia cannot have a base in Greenland, they cannot send troops to Greenland and the necessary mechanisms are in place to prevent investment in sensitive sectors,” a State Department official said.

Andy Hernández is a Venezuelan economist and grassroots activist. He currently serves in the parliament of the 5 de Marzo Comandante Eterno Commune in El Valle, Caracas, and has played an active role in the Communard Union, a national alliance of communes. In this exclusive interview, Hernández offers his perspective on local, state-backed projects within the current context of undermined sovereignty.

The 5 de Marzo Comandante Eterno Commune immediately mobilized in response to the double earthquake on June 24. Tell us a little about this and other recent initiatives by the commune.

After the twin earthquakes on June 24, community organizations sprang into action immediately. Collection centers were set up even before the government announced them. In our case, we set up a collection center on the premises of our communal social enterprise (EPSDC) Somos Karive.

At the same time, we noticed that around Somos Karive, many elderly people began leaving their homes, frightened, and taking to the streets. We brought them coffee, talked with them, and before we knew it, we had 300 people inside Somos Karive. There, with the support of the Ministry of Communes and the Caracas Mayor’s Office, we set up a shelter for a few days, until the panic subsided and people felt calm enough to return to their homes.

Somos Karive is one of the community’s main projects. How is it currently operating?

This initiative originally arose from a need to have a space to store food and expand our collaboration with the Pueblo a Pueblo Plan, a rural collective that organizes with urban counterparts to deliver produce at fair prices. The project then grew and now has several branches. The main operation, which generates the most cash flow, partly because it’s coordinated with the Ministry of Commerce, is the meat-processing plant. There, various cuts of meat are cleaned and portioned, vacuum-sealed, and then sold retail and wholesale to about 30 grocery stores in El Valle.

The second most important activity is our supermarket, which sells groceries and other products. There’s also the café, a space at the entrance that serves coffee, breakfast, and lunch. In fact, we also prepare large-scale lunches on demand. Another project here is a water treatment plant. And finally, a Family Production Unit (UPF) operates here, selling screws and other tools. This UPF contributes to the community through the social reinvestment fund. For now, that fund is used to support community activities. But according to the Law of Communes, the fund must be managed by the communal bank, which we are currently reactivating.

In short, Somos Karive has had its successes and failures, but it is a key initiative. I believe the most complex issue is establishing a management model. While all economic activity must generate a surplus, social property companies propose a different framework for labor relations. There is no boss; rather, there is administrative coordination that answers to the commune. No taxes are paid; instead, contributions are made to the social reinvestment fund. There are no social security contributions, but there must be a fund to support producers and a fund for necessary reinvestments. So we’ve been facing these challenges, in addition to the difficulty of operating EPS in the city, where retail activity makes sense but there is a lot of competition.

The Venezuelan government announced a new popular consultation [for communities to select state-funded projects] for October. What has been the outcome of previous consultations in the commune?

The consultations have led to progress and also provided valuable lessons in our territory. Before the first consultation in 2024, we drew up a wish list without asking ourselves whether those items were feasible or not. Now, after several votes, and with some tools provided by the Venezuelan government for systematic planning, such as the Concrete Action Agenda or the Map of Solutions, we’ve been able to ground the projects in reality. Today we can say that we manage the proposed initiatives and the resources obtained much more effectively. Sometimes we even prepare two reports: one institutional and one community-based.

The most recent one was an extremely complex water project. Our community has gone 30 years without a regular water supply. There are no formal water supply connections, just hoses everywhere. First, the project was formulated: to fix the problem for 291 families without service, and it really did have a significant impact. 

Other initiatives proved more difficult. For example, with a project to purchase water tanks, the funds raised were enough for only 10 tanks, yet hundreds of families needed them. The same thing happened with the project from the last consultation, which was to replace gas cylinders. We’ve managed to replace about 500, but there are 2,700 in total that need replacing. And the biggest challenge was with the rooftops. We needed 16,000 zinc sheets, but the project funds only allowed us to purchase about 850. So in situations like these it is difficult to manage everyone’s needs. In the end, we identified the most vulnerable homes, but we were only able to assist 65. No matter how well we manage the resources, they simply aren’t enough.

So we’ve had our share of setbacks, along with a lot of lessons. People now understand that we have to identify the scope of the problems that can actually be solved through these consultations. Rather than having a wish list, we’re learning to formulate real, concrete, and feasible projects.

What do you think of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez’s proposal to extend consultations to condominium boards and neighborhood associations?

To be honest, I find it interesting. The initial reaction, which I’ve seen in discussions with comrades, is to view it with suspicion, thinking of middle-class condominiums that have never believed in popular power.

The central issue is that a condominium board merely manages infrastructure, whereas the commune must implement policies on health, education, recreation, etc. It must act as the government in the territory, even if we aren’t fully exercising that role. So it might seem that by extending the consultation to condominiums, our presence is being undermined. However, our legislation doesn’t prevent condominium boards from participating in these processes.

Ultimately, the commune is the structure that defines the methodology for these consultations. Perhaps if, at some point, the consultations begin to prioritize the perspective of condominium boards, this concern would be justified. To me, that would indeed be a colossal mistake because it would violate the principle that the citizens’ assembly is the body that decides and has the final say on local projects.

Turning to the national scene, some analysts describe the situation in Venezuela as “tutelage,” while others call it a “protectorate,” where the country’s fate is essentially decided in Washington. In this context, what role should grassroots organizations play? Is it justified to maintain unconditional support for the government?

Here I will speak in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my commune or the Communard Union, because this is a complex and highly contentious debate taking place within social movements, with many different perspectives.

There are several positions: some speak of tutelage, others of a protectorate, and others of a new form of neocolonialism. I believe we must ask ourselves what defines sovereignty. For me, there are two models of sovereignty currently clashing worldwide: one defined by corporations and the other by organized peoples. Now, in more concrete terms, I defend the Venezuelan revolutionary process, our history, and our struggle. I do not agree with some of the government’s decisions, but it remains my government nonetheless.

However, this is a very complex context in the wake of a foreign military intervention. How can a government be evaluated while under military coercion? That is a difficult question to answer. Regardless of whether or not one supports the government, January 3 [US military strikes and kidnapping of Maduro] is a turning point in our process. For me, the central issue is not whether to defend the government or not, but rather to defend our institutions. For example, I do not agree with reestablishing relations with Israel, nor do I agree with the terms of our relationship with the United States. But this is still my government.

I know this may sound illogical or contradictory, but as a popular movement we must understand that sovereignty is being contested on a global scale. Our goal is to build a new form of state, one that has the commune as its foundation. We must strive to ensure that these 5,400 communal circuits form a network for the defense of the territory, fighting for a new hegemony, and with a leadership that allows us to advance and influence national politics. However, this begins with exercising power from the territories in a coordinated manner, managing resources, and sustaining new social relations.

The communes are not even at 10% of our potential. Public consultations, for example, are a glimpse of what we can do, but they account for less than 1% of the national budget. This means that social organizations are not managing oil revenues, which are our primary source of wealth. We must develop political awareness not only to identify imperialist interests in our resources but also to create economic models that can scale up so we can challenge the status quo on different terms. For example, we could envision a communal corridor to exploit minerals in an alternative way. This would turn us into a real threat to those who seek to impose corporate sovereignty. 

But returning to the more practical question: should we support the government or not? I believe we must support it because it is the government that establishes our institutional framework, even if it takes the form of a bourgeois state that we want to transcend. Now, should we support every decision? Of course not. But defending sovereignty means defending our institutions against foreign powers that seek to impose themselves upon them. For example, the assassination of Niño Guerrero struck me as a very dangerous precedent.

Finally, I believe it is important to have these discussions, both individually and within our organizations. In the case of the Communard Union, we are preparing a congress where we will need to collectively establish positions regarding this reality and, from there, define the actions we will take to try and revert the situation we are currently facing.

In recent months, we have seen a series of measures and reforms clearly geared toward the interests of transnational capital, such as the reform of the Hydrocarbons Law. What stance should communards take on these issues of national interest?

The reform of the Hydrocarbons Law is an example of this advance of the corporate sovereignty model. And in our context, the coercion and plundering began immediately after January 3. The attacks against Venezuela to seize its resources did not begin a few months ago, but before there was some care about appearances. Now the United States has moved on to directly stealing the country’s export revenues. This is like going back to the 19th century.

It is a complex time for the world. We are sometimes a bit chauvinistic; we believe that Venezuela determines what happens everywhere else. Although we certainly have an impact. We have the world’s largest energy reserves, minerals, fresh water, and other resources. Naturally, without independence there is no commune, and defending the process means defending national independence in order to envision a different world.

Now, what steps should we take to defend ourselves against this plundering? We have our Constitution, but this scheme falls outside even the international legal framework. Some might say the solution is to sabotage our own oil industry, but others would ask whether that would help shift the correlation of forces. Because we’re not just interested in being right. We want to change reality. We could issue a statement from the Communard Union right now, outlining everything we disagree with, and perhaps we should do so, but we must collectively decide what our coherent course of action will be, in terms of politics, communication, and so on, to defend our national project.

Venezuelan communes have also been characterized by their internationalism. How do you assess recent events, ranging from “joint” military operations with the US to the reestablishment of ties with Israel?

We believe that the commune is a civilizational project that we are implementing in a specific territory: Venezuela. Elsewhere, people may call it something else or pursue it with a different strategy, but we believe it is a civilizational project that is being debated around the world. So, based on that, the commune is obviously anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist. However, we are being subjugated and subdued. Not just the communes, but the country as a whole.

I believe that in the aftermath of January 3, elements such as the rapprochement with Israel were imposed on us. January 3 and the subsequent coercion were decisive in shifting the balance of institutional power, both within the Venezuelan state and in its foreign relations. The United States violated the Constitution, subdued our armed forces, and killed more than 200 people, including those extrajudicially murdered at sea, not to mention the piracy of hijacking our oil tankers. Thus, these disastrous changes are an imposition based on the logic of the military victor getting the spoils. In fact, US officials have openly stated this.

But the concept of the commune is and always will be anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, and in support of the self-determination of peoples, with a vision of how resources and community life should be organized, the full exercise of our sovereignty, and so on. In this context, the communes must resist by demonstrating their existence, their socially owned enterprises, their assemblies, and their impact on the territory. Demonstrating that another way of life is possible is a way to fight back both locally and internationally.

Tatuy TV is celebrating its 19th anniversary at a very difficult time in our history as an independent nation. With a people engulfed in daily hardship and our sovereignty compromised on several fronts, the outlook is clearly bleak.

In this editorial, we take a close look at the situation in Venezuela, not to sink us further into despair, but to reject the normalization of the current course.

We refuse to accept this neocolonialism as inevitable or even desirable. Gaining clarity on the current context is essential for us to regroup and rebuild our future.

The Pessimism of the Intellect

Although this story did not begin on January 3 (and we must analyze how we reached that point), recent months have been marked by a dizzying political shift in favor of the bourgeoisie – both domestic and foreign – and US imperialism. Our current condition as a country is one of completely compromised sovereignty.

If oil revenues go into an account at the US Treasury Department, and the national government has to submit a budget in order to have its own resources (partially) released, if judicial and electoral bodies are appointed under US tutelage, if the most important laws are drafted in consultation with the White House and Chevron executives, if the imperial army can come and go as it pleases and bomb whatever it wants on national soil, what is truly left of an independent nation?

In what world can a country that maintains criminal sanctions against our people, that bombed Venezuela and kidnapped its president, be an “ally”? The US ambassador struts around “inspecting” infrastructure and hospitals as if he were the overseer on a plantation, escorted by the adeco [anti-Chavista opposition] deputy foreign minister [Oliver Blanco], who smiles like a good little Yankee lapdog.

We could dwell on the battle of numbers surrounding the recent “historic” oil agreement with the Trump administration. However, the analysis is quite clear. The Rodríguez government has already rolled back national control and participation in the oil industry to disastrous levels, and this deal will offer even less favorable terms for the country.

Plain and simple, Venezuela’s oil reserves, even if they formally remain its property, have been placed at the service of an empire seeking to halt its decline. That gringo monster that sows death and destruction throughout the world now runs on Venezuelan fuel.

Selling Snakeoil and Hoping it Trickles Down

If in recent years there was any gap between a policy of class reconciliation in the face of economic blockade and a discourse that retained certain key elements of the Bolivarian project, that gap has now closed completely.

Gone are any notions that PDVSA can produce oil, that housing is a right and not a commodity, that land should belong to those who work it, and so on, not to mention terms like “socialism” or “anti-imperialism,” which have disappeared entirely.

Instead, today the goal is exclusively to create the best possible conditions for capital. Laws must be reformed, assets denationalized and privatized, evictions carried out in both rural and urban areas, foreign currency handed out to the bourgeoisie without restraint, and labor regulations made more flexible – whatever it takes so that the wealthy can feel confident they will earn even more money.

And then the trickle-down effect will follow. All the key tenets of the neoliberal discourse of the past 40 years are now commonplace in the national government’s rhetoric: that we must attract investment because that is the only way to create jobs, and that the only way to have schools and hospitals is by subordinating the energy industry to the United States and its corporations.

There is no better example of this surrender to foreign capitalist interests than the fact that half the country is permanently in the dark so that corporations can continue to extract their profits from our subsoil.

Nor is the avalanche of reversals anywhere near over. Still to come are the government’s plan to privatize state assets, the labor reform tailored to [business lobby] FEDECÁMARAS’ interests, the downsizing of the state in the name of “efficiency,” and the restructuring of a debt as massive as it is illegitimate, all aimed at deepening Venezuela’s dependence even further.

Tragedy and Farce at the Same Time

For years, internal debate was suppressed and repressed because we were under siege by imperialism and the fascist international. It did not matter that the discussion was about the best way to resist without sacrificing the project. We had to remain silent in the face of all kinds of abuses, since if the right-wing opposition came to power, it would dismantle all the gains of the revolution and hand over the oil on a silver platter to the United States.

And now the official propagandists want to prove that you can square the circle, that what has all the hallmarks of colonial surrender and submission is in fact a “win-win” strategic advance.

There is no mistake more serious and outrageous than taking the people for fools. For months we heard that we had to prepare for people’s war, that the U.S. would face its own “Vietnam 2.0” and would not receive a single drop of oil if it were to attack Venezuela. No one wanted a bloodbath, but it was asserted that we had to asymmetrically resist against imperialist aggression. Then after January 3 we were told that we didn’t have enough weapons and that being a vassal of the empire is not so bad.

Another central argument was internationalism. We were told that despite all the setbacks and internal contradictions, Venezuela was still on the “good side,” the side of multipolarity. And that was not a lie. Venezuela maintained relations with Cuba and sent oil there – albeit less than in the past –, supported Iran, fiercely defended the Palestinian cause, and denounced imperialism in multilateral forums.

Today, Venezuela’s foreign policy is no different from that of any other country subordinate to Washington. Not a drop of oil for Cuba, zero support for Iran, an alliance with the Gulf monarchies, silence on Palestine, and restored ties with Israel. Strategic relations with Russia and China are being sidelined, and their companies are gradually being displaced to make way for those authorized by Trump.

Those who adapt and justify any scenario are opportunists who lack principles. The sole objective is to remain in power, even if it means implementing the exact opposite of what was previously proclaimed. The current leadership simply concluded that the best bet for staying in power was to be as useful as possible to imperialism.

History Is Not Over

In the not-so-distant past, the Venezuelan people reclaimed their dignity, which had been stripped away by one group or another for centuries, and emerged as the protagonists of their own history. They did so under the leadership of Comandante Chávez. Grassroots struggles propelled Chávez to Miraflores presidential palace, and he, as an “outsider,” changed the rules of a game that had until then been reserved exclusively for the elites.

This phenomenon was no historical accident. It was not the result of oil at $120 a barrel. It was a heroic creation, born of struggle, critical thinking, and a clear vision: socialism. Along the way, mistakes were made; old vices were ignored, and new ones were created. We must be willing to debate all of this with humility and honesty.

However, we will not renounce Chávez simply because his legacy was trampled upon by those who represent the very opposite of the Bolivarian project, yet cling to the image of the Comandante to inherit a legitimacy they never deserved.

Revolution does not happen through shortcuts. The struggle is also for historical memory. And here, those who want to be the Titanic’s orchestra just to hold onto their positions or small fiefdoms are free to do so. But they should at least have the dignity not to pretend that this course has anything to do with Chávez and Bolívar.

The empire is making plans for Venezuela’s future while different factions fight to become the lackey government of the moment. The challenge, both in our nation and across the continent, is to reorganize our equals, the working people who have nothing to lose but their chains. Starting over does not mean starting from scratch.

From our media front, as well as in the political spaces where we participate, we will do our part to bring these struggles to light and sharpen our collective consciousness. Imperialism and its lackeys will not have the final say. The Venezuelan people will once again become protagonists and set the wheels of their history in motion.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Tatuy Tv