Venezuela’s Civilian-Military Union and the White Supremacist American 17th Century Pilgrims

On March 8, 2019, during a Special Briefing in the State Department, Washington, DC, Elliott Abrams, U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela said in response to a question from a Bloomberg journalist:

QUESTION [Bloomberg journalist]: Mr. Abrams, in the weeks since Juan Guaidó was recognized as the interim president, the Secretary of State and you have sort of intimated that there would be – that the military would flip in – imminently, that something might happen next week or the next week. Have you been disappointed – I mean, you remarked a little bit about the timeline, but have you been disappointed that the military continues to seemingly side with Mr. Maduro?

MR ABRAMS: Wouldn’t say that – I wouldn’t use the word “disappointed.” I would say we continue to call on the Venezuelan military to follow their own constitution. We call on them to restore – it’s better in Spanish – institucionalidad. We don’t really have a word in English – institutionality – but to restore their own proper role in any country. One of the definitions of having a state is having monopoly on force and violence for the security forces of the state. That’s not happening in Venezuela, where the government is using, the regime is using armed gangs, colectivos. One would think that the police and military in any country would find that unacceptable.

So we continue to hope that people in the Venezuelan security forces understand that the future of their country is going to be in much better hands if the Maduro regime comes to an end and the transition to democracy begins. And again, I would say it do until the day that it begins to happen.

Is the US stymied by the union of millions of Venezuelans with the military, including its armed militia, as outlined in a previous Global Research article on this  civilian-military union?

The nemesis which the US is facing started – in the current period – on February 23rd on the Venezuelan border with Colombia. The US attempt to promote a mutiny among the military and a revolt within the people against Maduro in favour of the US hand -picked and self-proclaimed “president” failed miserably.

The day after this debacle, Mike Pompeo US Secretary of State said on CNN State of the Union (SOTU) with Jack Tapper, February 24, 2019:

“TAPPER: But it seems as though Maduro is not going anywhere near this [US] plan, that he’s holding onto power, and the military seems to be staying with him, at least the military leaders.

POMPEO: It always seems that way, until the day it doesn’t.

I remember, when I was a young soldier patrolling the then East German border. No one predicted on that day in 1989 that that wall would come crumbling down. Predictions are difficult. Picking exact days are difficult. 

While these words say a lot, one had to see the body language – the sheepish look – on the face of the Secretary of State representing the most powerful military force on earth. He did not seem convinced that the “Berlin Wall moment” would come to Venezuela. That was on February 24, yet as we see above on March 8, Abrams had the same problem.

Why is this? The U.S.-centric mindset has been steeped in the white supremacist notion of the “chosen people” from the time of the 17th century Pilgrims. It consists, among other features, of the racist outlook that peoples in the “Third World,” such as Latin America, cannot take their destiny in their own hands.

However, the opposite has been – and is – presently taking place. As a result of U.S. policies, democracy in Venezuela has been crossing the Rubicon from participatory democracy to a protagonist one. While the two are similar, especially in comparison with the experience of the Diktat in the capitalist North, there is a qualitative difference. Is it possible that as a result of the US policy toward Venezuela  – which one should recall this March 9 as the anniversary of the Obama 2015 Decree declaring Venezuela to be a threat to the US security – the Bolivarian Revolution’s democracy is becoming “above all” – as Chávez predicted and desired – “protagonist and not only participatory”?

Not only has the Pilgrim “chosen people” guideline for US foreign policy blinded Washington as to its capacity to conquer a country such as Venezuela, the arrogance of the 17the century bible-thumping “City upon a Hill You are the Light of the World” has further inspired the majority of Venezuelans. They are increasingly resisting the US and their allies. The Chavista movement is increasingly becoming the author of its own Bolivarian Revolution, not only participating in it.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 ElectionsCuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and the recently released  Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist he collaborates with many web sites in Latin America, Europe and North America including Global ResearchTwitter,  Facebook, His website:

All images in this article are from the author

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Arnold August

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]