Ideological Blindness of UN Expert is a Triumph for Venezuelan State Propaganda

48
Photo: Correo del Orinoco

“I’ve compared the statistics of Venezuela with those of other countries and there’s no humanitarian crisis.”

With these words, Alfred De Zayas, the Cuban-born American human rights expert sent by the United Nations last November to asses the state of the country, shows his limited scope in evaluating (or understanding) our crisis.

In a completely biased (and broadly divulged) interview to the government’s international propaganda branch news channel Telesur, De Zayas claims that “economic war” and “international blockade” are to blame for Venezuela’s dire situation: “Venezuela suffers an economic war, a financial blockade and a high level of smuggling, so of course it needs international solidarity to solve these issues.”

According to him, the international aid that Venezuela requires shouldn’t be aimed at pressing the openly dictatorial government of Nicolás Maduro and pave the way to an economic stabilization. It should lift the economic sanctions placed by the U.S., Canada and the European Union instead, things that “worsen the scarcity of food and medicines” and seek to “destroy the Bolivarian Revolution and the social laws approved by Chávez and Maduro.”

De Zayas uses the alleged blockade of antimalarial drugs coming from a Colombian lab by Juan Manuel Santos’ government a few months ago as an example of foreign sabotage, even though there’s no proof of such a thing; he also ignores that Venezuela receives most of its antimalarial drugs directly from the Panamerican Health Organization at subsidized prices (and the current malaria epidemic, the worst in the hemisphere, comes greatly from the government’s treatment of illegal mining and its poor prevention campaigns).

“Venezuela suffers an economic war, a financial blockade and a high level of smuggling, so of course it needs international solidarity to solve these issues.”

But he had time to complain about the “invisibilization” of his visit by mainstream media, where he held reunions with sixteen ministries, checked the state of government-controlled social plans and had a nice chat with Chancellor Arreaza and National Constituent Assembly President, Delcy Rodríguez.

But hey, he also met with Fedecámaras and visited a couple of supermarkets. That’s being impartial, right?

It’s a shame that Mr. De Zayas didn’t have the time to spend a night at any public hospital of the country, where he could have witnessed a mother giving her malnourished baby away, how surgical material is “sterilized” with regular alcohol and matches or how dialysis patients are about to die after weeks without therapies. He could’ve spared a few minutes to talk to the families of the protesters wounded or killed by the government’s repression last year.

Granted, Venezuela is not Syria or 1994’s Rwanda (yet), but an international lawyer and historian like Alfred De Zayas should know that dismissing the Venezuelan situation and buying the government’s narrative (while ignoring the clear signs of an incoming disaster) is the last thing the UN should do if they don’t want Venezuela on their growing list of historical mistakes.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

48 COMMENTS

  1. Leftists are going to Leftist…
    Give it a few more years and you will have media types, professors etc. telling the kids of the Venz. diaspora that their parents must have been gangsters who stole the wealth and were driven out by the righteous descendants of Simon Bolivar .

    My Cuban buddies here in the US all remember going to college and being told the same thing.

    Pinochet seems to have rescued Chile from the fate that Vz is suffering now, gave up power, and (maybe I am ignorant) I don’t see where his kids and family are super rich now… And yet Pinochet get’s more bad press from the left, media types etc. than Chavez and Castro combined.

    I wonder how long until Marci is Hitler?

    • Indeed, I fear that.

      What really, really astounds me about Pinochet is not that he gets more bad press than Chavez and Castro put together from the left and media. THAT I expect, in the same way that Ho Chi Minh is treated as some kind of liberating hero rather than a perfidious mass murderer like he was.

      What REALLY astounds me is that Pinochet gets worse press than the Argentine anti-Peronist Juntas. Particularly the “National Reorganization Process.”

      Even as a man of the right I have no great affinity for Pinochet, and frankly I think his coup was done in an attempt to seize power for himself while he could still claim Allende was something of a threat even though the declaration by the Chilean Legislature largely cut his back out. No question Pinochet tortured and murdered a bunch of people.

      But when you compare Pinochet to *Freaking Videla and co* and how they wholesale exterminated dozens if not a couple hundred thousand of their own people in ways much more blatant and brutal than Pincohet usually did….

      It’s pretty jarring. Particularly when you realize how one of the great quotes that come from it is. “First we will kill all the subversives; then we will kill all their collaborators; then their sympathisers; then those who remained indifferent; and finally, we’ll kill the undecided.”

      But I suppose most people don’t know who the hell said that, let alone who did it.

      And yet here’s the really horrifying thing. As bad as the Argentine Juntas were, they didn’t plunge their country into famine.

      • But when you compare Pinochet to *Freaking Videla and co* …It’s pretty jarring. Particularly when you realize how one of the great quotes that come from it is. “First we will kill all the subversives; then we will kill all their collaborators; then their sympathisers; then those who remained indifferent; and finally, we’ll kill the undecided.”

        I was working in Argentina during when Videla + co. were running things. An Argentine told me they used the address books of political prisoners to compile the kill lists.

        And yet here’s the really horrifying thing. As bad as the Argentine Juntas were, they didn’t plunge their country into famine.
        Given Argentina’s long-term status as one of the world’s leading meat and grain exporters, that would have been rather difficult. In 1980, Carter was trying to put the screws on the USSR for its invasion of Afghanistan. Thus the US boycott of the Olympics that year, which were being held in Moscow. The Junta sold wheat that year to the Soviets, a thumb to the nose to Carter for his denouncing the Junta’s human rights violations. Argentines were aware of Carter’s denunciations, and appreciated them, they told me.

        • “I was working in Argentina during when Videla + co. were running things. An Argentine told me they used the address books of political prisoners to compile the kill lists.”

          Damn. I hadn’t heard of that particular detail, but it doesn’t surprise me.

          To the best of my knowledge Pinochet and co never went quite that far. Though they certainly were nasty buggers.

          Whether or not they were worse than Allende planned is something I don’t know.

          ” Given Argentina’s long-term status as one of the world’s leading meat and grain exporters, that would have been rather difficult.”

          Difficult? Absolutely.

          But not impossible.

          I mean, Communist tyranny caused artificial famines to happen in Ukraine- the breadbasket of Europe- and Sichuan, the ancient Black Earth “Land of Silk and Money” for China.

          I’m sure a dictator that is “inspired” enough can find a way.

          “In 1980, Carter was trying to put the screws on the USSR for its invasion of Afghanistan. Thus the US boycott of the Olympics that year, which were being held in Moscow. The Junta sold wheat that year to the Soviets, a thumb to the nose to Carter for his denouncing the Junta’s human rights violations. Argentines were aware of Carter’s denunciations, and appreciated them, they told me.”

          Indeed.

          I may not be a big fan of Peanut Carter- including his softballing Chavezist tyranny- butI can appreciate him for doing that.

          • The famine in Ukraine was the result of communist tyranny but it was also the product of Russian imperialism (which continues to this day, though communism is long gone).

            The Bolsheviks needed to feed their supporters in Russia after the events of the revolution, at a time when the Russian economy was already in total collapse, and so from the period of the civil war and following, they began the systematic seizure and looting of Ukrainian grain, and the domination of a briefly liberated Ukrainian population to secure those ends.

            It is important to understand, from a Western and Ukrainian perspective at least, that what happened was a genocide inflicted on a population under the domination of an imperial power and not simply the horrible effects of communist mismanagement and collectivization.

            Stalin purposively starved Ukrainians. The communist system within Russia, though full of many horrors, poverty and widespread suffering (the gulag system etc), did not produce that kind of mass starvation.

            My apologies as this has absolutely nothing to do with Venezuela.

          • @Canucklestan

            “The famine in Ukraine was the result of communist tyranny but it was also the product of Russian imperialism (which continues to this day, though communism is long gone).”

            Sure, but let’s not mince words.

            Russian imperialism had been a problem for Ukraine and Central Asia for centuries. Starting with Ivan III the Muscovite State expanded at a staggering rate and brutal cost, subduing its’ Russian cousins and then moving on across Siberia and Southern Europe. The Tsars were guilty of an awful lot of stuff. As is Putin.

            But actual, artificial famine was a rarity even in the bloody annals of one of Europe’s most ruthless and longlasting Autocracies.

            Yet in Stalin’s time two popped up almost immediately in “trouble areas” for the Kremlin, followed on its’ heels by shoddy treatment of the third that hit in the late 1940’s (and was mostly natural).

            Coincidence?

            I think not.

            This isn’t to say Russian imperialism didn’t play a role- Stalin the assimilated Georgian certainly preferred to push Russian interests- or that non-Communist Russian Imperialists can never commit to an artificial famine. It’s just incredibly rare.

            “The Bolsheviks needed to feed their supporters in Russia after the events of the revolution, at a time when the Russian economy was already in total collapse, and so from the period of the civil war and following, they began the systematic seizure and looting of Ukrainian grain, and the domination of a briefly liberated Ukrainian population to secure those ends.”

            This is a bit of compression. And probably mashing the memories of the Northern Russian famine of 1921 and so with the Holodomor that hit the Southern USSR in the early 1930’s.

            And yes, warfare, the devastation from it, and the lovely mixtre of Communist oppression and mismanagement played a massive role in the 1921 famine getting to be as bad as it was. To the point where they openly solicited aid from the outside world (unlike the Holodomor).

            In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, internal peace and the food supply in the Soviet Unon had rebounded from the utter devastation of the Civil Wars and WWI into….Meh, decent territory. It wasn’t great, not at all, and the centralized management managed ineffectively on the whole. But major warfare was a matter of future planning by the Kremlin rather than current reality, the grab bag of rebels and outlaw troops fighting them had been crushed or forced out of Soviet territory, and the food supply had increased. to the point where it wouldn’t hit cities like Moscow and Central Russia until WWII.

            But yet out of the blue Stalin began accelerating collectivization in the South in particular, and suddenly two massive and near-simultaneous famines break out after *mediocre but not terrible harvest yields.*

            Complete with the deployment of about half the NKVD to Ukraine and Central Asia (esp. Kazakhstan), blacklisting villages from receiving food rations, the confiscation of seed grain, and so forth which gutted the Ukrainian countryside and Southern Central Asia, in favor of propping up the urban centers and moving in ethnic Russian colonists.

            This wasn’t the product of civil war era ruin, and it certainly doesn’t explain why the Bolsheviks shunned foreign aid during the time unlike the 1921/2 famines.

            This was almost certainly intentional, and its’ primary goal was not even to bolster the Russian urban heartland but to lay these regions Law.

            “It is important to understand, from a Western and Ukrainian perspective at least, that what happened was a genocide inflicted on a population under the domination of an imperial power and not simply the horrible effects of communist mismanagement and collectivization.”

            Except again, it wasn’t just the results of domination by an imperial power- Ukraine had been under Russian domination for centuries. And it also didn’t target one population, it targeted several, particularly Central Asian nomads like the ethnic Kazakhs.

            And the ideological basis for this was primarily couched in terms of communist ideology, not Russian ultranationalism. Simply put, Stalin and most of the other Old Bolsheviks viewed the Ukrainian peasantry and Central Asian nomads as being retrograde, reactionary forces in the historical dialectic. While the urban, industrial working class was viewed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin as the driver of revolutionary change and a spearhead towards the evolution of a classless society, nomads were viewed as a primitive, tribal anachronism and the rural peasantry were viewed as hotbeds of reactionary politics and nationalist sentiment. As such, the Bolsheviks believed they needed to be brought to heel.

            The nomad cultures had to be forced into sedimentary life as either farmers or urban city dwellers where they could attain a revolutionary consciousness and become good worker bees, and the Ukrainian rural population had to be culled and had its’ cultural and nationalist leadership gutted.

            Stalin’s racial and ethnic biases- as well as those of the other Bolsheviks- certainly played a role in how he organized the Holodomors in Ukraine and Central Asia- and particularly his decision to settle the depopulated areas with Russian settlers. But again, at least on a conscious level the population exchanges were not because Stalin thought Russians Uber Alles, but because he viewed Russians as being more amiable to Communist system.

            “Stalin purposively starved Ukrainians. ”

            Among others.

            “The communist system within Russia, though full of many horrors, poverty and widespread suffering (the gulag system etc), did not produce that kind of mass starvation.”

            Except that’s not true at all.

            For one, even if we were to uncritically accept your argument that the motive was Imperial expansion and Ultranationalism, the *Means* in which the Holodomor was carried out was reliant upon use and abuse of the Communist system imposed throughout the parts of the former Russian empire that the Bolsheviks conquered. Chief among them how the central rationing system and food deployment happened.

            Villages were put on blacklists indicating that no food would be given to them, in effect labeling their authorized food intake at zero under the Communist central management system. And the NKVD and to a lesser extent regular army troops were deployed to make a cordon around them to make sure they could not get out.

            This was devastating because-again- the Communist system meant that all resources were supposed to be given to the central planning organs of the Bolshevik state and then rationed out by the technocrats there in order to ensure maximum efficiency. Without the communist system, being blacklisted for food aid would have been painful but Possibly livable. With it it became a death sentence.

            Likewise, the nominal justification for the Holodomor was done by raising the levels of foodstuffs to be requisitioned at unreachably high, ruinous levels and then refusing any and all attempts to lower them. Again, this was done using the levers of Communist economic management, so while the whole “demand more food for them until they starve” thing was certainly not Unique to communism (the Thirty Years’ War saw no end to it), the way it was carried out was.

            As was the deployment of secret police to “confiscate” the “hidden” foodstuffs, very much unlike the Tsarist MO in which that would be done by the regular army, whether 17th century Strelets or 18th century Greencoats or late 19th century Cossack units. This was not because the Tsarist secret police were humanitarians and not evil, but because their ideological purpose was to safeguard the crown and snuff out all dissent, not to engage in theoretical economic planning and crop management.*

            And to the best of my knowledge the prohibition of eating spare food left over from a harvest was unprecedented in Russian imperial history. Not to say that this or that Boyar wouldn’t shoot a poor serf scrounging the fields looking for something to eat after the crop was brought in, but that this was not codified by the central state like it was with the Law of the Wheat Ears. And enforced by massed deployments of armed NKVD and Red Army detachments.

            So the methodology of the Holodomor becomes *incoherent* unless it’s seen against the backdrop of the Communist or Quasi-Communist system the Bolsheviks imposed. Particularly in terms of how Stalin prevented anybody below him from authorizing food aid. Even if the Communist system played absolutely no role in the famines beyond being the shape in which the Soviets forced it, that would be reason enough to credit it with this particular set of horrors.

            And it turns out that isn’t the only one. Again, when we examine the stated motivations behind Soviet famine policy in Ukraine and particularly Central Asia, we see Marxist dialectical and economic rationales being used to justify it. Not Russian ultra-nationalist ones. That the retrograde classes of people and their anachronistic ways of life be brought under the firm management of central planning, and those who did not or would not yield be crushed.

            Even the decision to deploy Russian colonists being used with the understanding Stalin gained as one of Lenin’s “Nationality Tsars”- for lack of a better word- that Russians were on the whole more favorably inclined to Communism than those they were replacing.

            Now does this mean that the Holodomor was NOT part and parcel of Russian imperial expansion at the expense of Central Asia and Ukraine? Absolutely not. It certainly was, and it’s important to keep this in mind.

            Is it safe to say that the Communist justifications the Soviets stated were mingled with nationalist and ethnocentric biases? Yes, especially given Stalin’s own nature as an assimilated Georgian who wanted to be “More Russian than the Russians” and his political support of them.

            But this wasn’t Just another chapter in the long and sordid history of Muscovite hegemony in these regions. And we can tell because while Muscovite brutality has been and remains extremely brutal and aggressive- as we can see by looking at the Donbas today- it was not always done by way of distinctly Communist mediums. And indeed, it is strikingly different than most other episodes of Tsarist brutality in Ukraine and Central Asia.

            (In general, the Tsarist authorities preferred outright military extermination with some elements of scorched earth- for instance burning villages and farms associated with Mazepa during the Great Northern War and slaughtering Tatars and other horse nomads when captured like during the Fall of Kazan and the subjugation of Samarkand).

            The idea of cordoning off a bunch of people and driving them towards death by starvation via excessive food levies and confiscation remains relatively novel in Russia’s long and ugly imperial history. And it’s best understood in these particular cases by the intersection of historic Russian expansionism and desire to control Ukraine and Central Asia, and the Communist system and ideology that the Bolsheviks imposed after the Russian Civil War.

            “My apologies as this has absolutely nothing to do with Venezuela.”

            No need to apologize, this is the kind of stuff I eat up.

          • “The idea of cordoning off a bunch of people and driving them towards death by starvation via excessive food levies and confiscation remains relatively novel in Russia’s long and ugly imperial history. And it’s best understood in these particular cases by the intersection of historic Russian expansionism and desire to control Ukraine and Central Asia, and the Communist system and ideology that the Bolsheviks imposed after the Russian Civil War.”

            I basically agree with that.

        • To the best of my knowledge Pinochet and co never went quite that far. Though they certainly were nasty buggers.
          The commonly accepted kill figures for the Argentine Junta and Pinochet are 30,000 from 1976-1983 for the Junta and 3,000 from 1973-1990 (16 yr) for Pinochet, which becomes 4,000 /yr for the Junta and 200/yr for Pinochet. Taking into account that Argentina’s population is about 2x that of Chile, on a per population basis, compared to what Pinochet did, the Junta killed 10 times per year.

          This disproportion becomes even greater when you take into account that the Chilean far left was much greater and much more institutionalized than their Argentine equivalent. A year into the Junta’s coup, there was very little guerrilla activity in Argentina. In the mid 1980s, over a decade after the coup, Pinochet came close to losing his life in an attack on his car convoy.

          In addition, the Chilean left got a lot of training from Cuba’s DGI. As an indication of DGI penetration into Chilean society, consider that Beatriz Allende, Salvador Allende’s daughter, married a Luis Fernandez de Oña, a Cuban DGI operative.

          Pinochet is reviled because he was successful. The Argentine Junta is forgotten because it was a failure.Both took power with considerable civilian support behind them- though there is no Argentine equivalent to the August 22 1973 the Chamber of Deputies passed by an 81-47 vote. It is usually not remembered that Jacobo Timerman, the Argentine publisher and journalist whom the Junta tortured for publishing news about human rights violations, had initially supported the coup. Just as many Chileans supported the coup with the expectation that there would be elections in 6 months. Instead, 16 years.

          As Allende’s goal was a one-party state (Georgie Ann Geyer’s Buying the Night Flight, free reading from Google Books, has the details.), he wasn’t the saint that many believe him to be. Those who like one-party states would not agree with me.

          • Interesting article.The author presents a selective history of Argentina: “the violence of the 1940s and 1950s under Perón..pales in comparison to state-sponsored terrorism…from 1976 to 1983.” While that statement is correct, the author conveniently leaves out 1970-1976. “The violence of the 1940s and 1950s under Perón” .also “pales in comparison” to the guerrilla violence from 1970-1973- most of it done by left-wing Peronistas. Juan Domingo Perón and his widow Isabel were Presidents from 1973 to March 1976. Both Peróns authorized “state-sponsored terrorism” to bring the left wing Peronistas under control. AAA ring a bell? And I don’t mean American Auto Association. 🙂

            As the Dirty War was pretty much over within a year or two of the Junta taking power, it would appear there was more “state-sponsored terrorism” under the Peróns from 1974-March 1976 than there was under the Junta from 1978-1983. Granted, overall the Junta killed more than the Peróns did, but the Peróns also had bloody hands. It might be said that the Junta finished what Peróns started.

            Back in the day, the author’s parents were leftist activists in Argentina- which probably explains his selective presenting of history.

            New York Review of Books (1972): the Corpse at the Iron Gate. VS Naipaul quotes Argie lefties on torture. “It depends on who is tortured.”

  2. Are we supposed to believe this was all because of sharing ideology with some who operate without any ideology, or could there be some other type Dany Glover reasons. We will have to watch for his tax declaration.

    By the way, when does an advance for a movie, like Chavez’ $18 million to Danny Glover, becomes an income if the movie is never shot?

  3. If you want to become more enraged, go read the story he posted on his twitter feed about the peaceful, content and resolute citizens of Venezuela.
    There is a special place in Hell reserved for him.
    He had a chance to shed light on the real situation, but instead chose to be complicit.
    I wonder how much the chavistas paid him?

  4. “I’ve compared the statistics of Venezuela with those of other countries and there’s no humanitarian crisis.”
    After all, a one-year rise of 30% in Infant Mortality is so common, we consider it a nothingburger. 🙂

    • Don’t tease me!!!

      I’ve had UN thugs ruin my last NYC trip by delaying a connecting flight. Long story short, “officials” had the plane held up while we waited for a drunk to fit in his 1st class seat.

      Move the entire buildings to Cuba for all I care.

  5. I guess this clown has joined Baltasar Garzon in the pantheon of academic/juridic mercenaries.

    Word was Garzon had pitched Maduro his services in re a possible date in The Hague down the road.

    • word is he came to venezuela 3 whole days before there was a formal declaration of the investigation. so how did he and the government know? I doubt about the “intentions” of the investigation

  6. I agree with some others here. This goes beyond willfull blindness. To produce a report that flies in the face of so much hard evidence to the contrary, requires bribery or extortion.

  7. P.O.S., probably bought, can’t be that stupid. As for Pinochet’s “cleansing”–a Venezuelan one to be effective would have to be many more times larger, and doubtfully will ever happen, meaning Venezuela will continue mired in its rags to who-knows-when….

    • NET, the fat chavista PDVSA union boss is named Wils Rangel Linares. Found a pic of him eating a rack of ribs and what looked like an entire chocolate cake. His skinny union underlings ought to ask him what the fuck’s up with his weight.

      • He is definitely not on the Maduro diet. Looks like he could go on a six month fast , living on vitamins and water, and still not be underweight.

  8. Sadly, once again BS baffles brains. And, when there were few brains present to begin with, BS even completely swamps common sense.

  9. To me, this is just run of the mill propaganda. The only reason there is any suffering anywhere on the patent is because of the US economic war. Got it. Whatever.

  10. Surely he used fake government statistics. Did he visit the country? This man is a collaborator of the Regime or a blind man. The genocide of the Venezuelans is evident to everybody in the country. Just send him in with a basic salary and then ask him again.

  11. Is De Zayas like Mark Weisbrot, and keeps tab on where his name appears, and threatens legal action? Because I posted some actual facts about De Zayas that weren’t published on this site. His quotes, including his blaming the Allies in WW2 for atrocities.

  12. Some of Alfreds “Greatest Hits!”

    The Old Testament is characterized by “cruelty” and “profound unreligiousity,” its patriarchs “equipped with divine legitimacy and justification to take our promised Lebensraum by force.”

    The World War II Allies who fought Nazi Germany should have been prosecuted for “barbarous” and “gruesome” crimes; the Nuremberg Court that judged Nazi war criminals had “hardly any legitimacy.”

    Churchill and Roosevelt connived at “a form of genocide” against the Germans.

    “Nuremberg was an exercise in hypocrisy. A continuation of hate and war… a corruption of legal norms and procedures, a pollution of philosophy, a truly Pharisee tribunal.”

    America bears “responsibility for the destabilization of… countries in the Middle East.”

    “Moses had such a rough time bringing the Jewish people across the Red Sea because half of them were busy picking up pretty shells.”

    ~~~~

    “…our promised Lebensraum…” Is there any doubt why this guy is the darling of Holocaust denier fanboys?

    • What really astounds me is that third quote, or rather where it stops.

      That specifically Roosevelt and Churchill “”“a form of genocide” against the Germans.”

      Yes yes, those are Totally the two names That come to mind when I think of Genocide against Germans during and After WWII.

      But do go on I say to him! Please finish the list, because while we all know stories of British tanks carrying out the deportation of the Volga German Soviet Republic and American Marines violating East Prussian women, there were MAYBE one or two *other* state leaders who played a MINOR role.

      You know like Stalin, Tito, Bierut; Świerczewski….. the Communists who conquered Eastern Europe, where the largest portions of the German diaspora were, and managed to make them Disappear back to the divided rump or the grave?

      I wonder why this yard doesn’t mention any of them…. since they were the muscle behind the heart of the genocide of the German people that Churchill and Roosevelt actually connived in…….

        • Sure, but they were murdered primarily because they were Jews (or other form of undesirable, like Roma, Jehovah’s Witness, or so on). Something I’m pretty sure even this particular totalitarian moron isn’t dumb enough to deny.

          But if we’re talking about Allied genocides against Germans, you pretty much have this wholesale *destruction* of the German diaspora by the Communist invasions and occupations, which Churchill and Roosevelt passively accepted..

          The fact that he apparently singles out the Western Allies for this in spite of being the least involved of the three big factions- Communists, Axis/NSDAP, and the WA- struck me. And only makes sense as him DESPERATELY trying to carry water for the Soviets.

  13. Are we still talking about the VENEZUELAN GENOCIDE? This Genocide is happenning now, with the Blessings of cuban “cummunists” and the economic and military interests of Russia, China, Iran,etc. accepting the tragedy to get their interests fullfiled. The world seems as “cauciously proactive “as it was in the past. That is the tragedy, whilst the “communism of the XXI century” and narcotraffic hydra grows….and grows….

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here