Corbyn & Maduro: An Ideological Kinship

Away from the all-devouring monster of never-ending carnage & mayhem that is Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn has managed to find himself in another sticky situation regarding bubbling tensions thousands of miles away in Venezuela.

A country in utter turmoil, Venezuela has been immobilised by years of economic inertia, starved after months of social neglect and ravaged by weeks of political violence. A failed coup in late April, backed by the Trump administration, was the latest attempted ousting of the embattled president, Nicolas Maduro.

Juan Guaido (left), Nicolas Maduro (right)

It’s fair to say that the eyes of the world are now firmly trained on the country. The USA, the UK, the EU and a number of Latin American countries have condemned Maduro and offered support to Juan Guaido, opposition leader and self-proclaimed president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Russia & China, on the other hand, have come out in support of Maduro – an individual many in the west have deemed a “dictator”.

Here, I want to look at where Jeremy Corbyn fits into all of this, what it is he’s said in recent weeks and why conservative leaders across the world have been so quick to condemn him.

Divisive Rhetoric

“The future of Venezuela is a matter for Venezuelans. Jeremy Hunt’s call for more sanctions on Venezuela is wrong. We oppose outside interference in Venezuela, whether from the US or anywhere else. There needs to be dialogue and a negotiated settlement to overcome the crisis.”

This is the Labour leader’s tweet that many interpreted to be an unwavering level of support towards Maduro’s regime. Yet, this an incredibly loaded message that says a lot, and not much at all, in just 45 words.

Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn

It is my own opinion that Corbyn’s comments actually cannot be interpreted as pro-Maduro. It’s anti-interventionism that frankly should be applauded. However, it’s important to know that those who have jumped on these comments have done so with Corbyn’s ideological background in mind.

In defence of Corbyn’s comments, Labour MP and Shadow Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti said: “Jeremy is a lifelong human rights defender. Sometimes it is difficult for him to cut through in the media because people just say, ‘Well you’re a socialist, just like Venezuela is.’"

There is a lot of truth to this statement and it is indeed difficult for Corbyn to speak openly about contemporary Venezuelan politics without it relating back to his own ideological beliefs and open support of Chavismo – a set of ideas that I’ll return to shortly.

Jeremy Corbyn at a rally celebrating ten years of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign in 2015

In response to Corbyn’s comments, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said: “It is disgusting to see leaders in not only the United Kingdom but in the United States as well who continue to support the murderous dictator Maduro. It is not in either of our countries’ best interests for those people to continue to advocate on their behalf.”

Regarding Pompeo’s response, it’s worth saying that he lacks all the balance and respect for national sovereignty that Corbyn’s own comments convey. The question of deposing a national leader should not be governed by the “best interests” of western countries such as the US and the UK. With so many in Venezuela now displaced or living in poverty, the answer to the country’s many ills lies in what is best for the population and, of course, that may well be an end to state socialism.

What’s more, Corbyn’s condemnation of US interventionism is not a sentiment shared by him alone. Earlier in 2019, UK Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt said: “In the end, it’s not for the UK to decide the outcome of what happens in Venezuela… That’s for the people of Venezuela.”

Word-for-word, these comments are almost identical to those shared by Corbyn just a few months later. So, what is it that makes Mr Hunt’s comments so harmless and Mr Corbyn’s so radical, outspoken and contentious? The answer to that question lies in the omnipotent force of ideology.

Corbyn & Maduro: An Ideological Kinship

As Shami Chakrabarti said, Corbyn is indeed “a lifelong human rights defender”, but he is also a staunch socialist who has always been committed to supporting socialist governments across the world, particularly in Latin America – a continent which has seen a number of examples of progressive socialism descend into repressive authoritarianism.

And this, I believe, is Corbyn’s fundamental problem – when is the right time to admit that the transition into authoritarianism has happened? Or perhaps Corbyn is ultimately unable to condemn Maduro’s government in the fear that it will undermine the entire legacy of Hugo Chavez.

Corbyn (left) with former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

This leads me to my final point, Corbyn has never openly supported Maduro in the same way he did Chavez – Venezuela’s revolutionary hero who championed the people and redefined the country’s class structure.

Yet, there is an unbreakable ideological kinship that ties Corbyn to Maduro. They are brought together in their belief in national socialism and their devotion to the legacy of Chavez. Even though many of Chavez’ most active supporters have turned against his successor Maduro, it is because of this kinship that Corbyn is entirely unable to condemn Maduro’s leadership.

Corbyn speaking about Hugo Chavez following the leader’s death in 2013

Socialism in America’s Backyard

There is a reason why the strife and hardship in Venezuela is being so eagerly watched across the world. It’s because the tensions extend beyond the physical world and reach into the ideological sphere and the age-old conflict between socialism and capitalism.

Just a few weeks ago, US Secretary of State, John Bolton addressed Russian interference in Venezuela by saying: “This is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians ought to be interfering.”

Of course, branding an entire hemisphere as the property of the United States might appear ludicrous, which it certainly is. But, honestly, this is nothing new and it only reinforces the idea of Latin America being damagingly dubbed “America’s backyard”.

The USA has been interfering in Latin American politics for generations. In 1904, Theodore Roosevelt even declared that the USA had the right to exercise an “international police power” across Latin America.

As a champion of global capitalism, the eradication of all forms of socialism has always been significant to domestic and foreign policy in America and this extends to their interventionism across Latin America.

From the Cuban Revolution in the late 1950s to the numerous ideological conflicts in Central America during the latter years of the 20th century, America has always made it clear that, as a society, communism and state socialism must not take root in Latin America.

This is precisely why Venezuela is of such high importance to the Trump administration. The overthrow of Nicolas Maduro and an end to the legacy of Chavez would prove to be a major asset to the country’s ideological worldview.

Yet, the struggle for Venezuela continues and after the failure of Guaido’s coup, few now can tell how the conflict will be resolved.