WE ARE THE SUBVERSIVES OF DIPLOMACY

During an interview with an Italian journalist, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister reiterated some key concepts of Bolivarian diplomacy, forged by Hugo Chávez.

“With Commander Chávez, but we can already say it with Bolívar, we consider ourselves a subversive international actor who opposes the dominant economic and political order,” says Arreaza, and then adds in another passage: “I don’t want to blur the merits of others, but the difference between those who simply apply the protocol and the diplomacy of peace is that in Venezuela who govern are the people, human beings and the community. ”

The Venezuelan people are very aware of what Arreaza said and for this reason strongly defend its own government and the Bolivarian Revolution. Contrary to what happens, for example, in Ecuador, where people in rebellion against neoliberalism are determined to send the government led by traitor Lenin Moreno home.

Jorge Arreaza, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, welcome us in his office in Caracas. With his sober and incisive style, he has exposed and dodged many traps directed at Venezuela internationally, highlighting the high level achieved by the “diplomacy of Peace” of his country. We ask that he explain the long march of Bolivarian socialism in international organizations.

You are one of the most representative faces of Chavism. How has the journey been and how did you find yourself facing this difficult international situation?

I have studied international relations, I concluded with a PhD in Cambridge, in the United Kingdom, on European studies, which I have never been able to exercise. I had to do it at the most complicated time for our international relations: when the United States began to impose unilateral measures, sanctions.

Trump threatened to use the military option a week after I took office. And then came the economic-financial blockade, the diplomatic siege, the creation of a group of governments in the region that came to block Venezuela, to try to isolate it through a dirty disinformation campaign. A very complicated moment that we have been able to untangle with great patience.

The President, as you know, was Minister of Foreign Affairs with Commander Chávez for 6 years. We were able to get out of that with our strategic patience, and little by little we saw how with the Bolivarian diplomacy of peace we have regularized things even inside, in a symbiotic process between national and international politics, which has seen results.

Today we have many friends among the governments of the South: in Africa, in Asia, in the Caribbean and, of course, in Our America, friends in the social movements, who recognize this; our path of firmness in the principles, capable of knowing how to succeed in difficulties.

 In the speeches of Chávez and then Maduro delivered on the occasion of important international events, the great voices of the twentieth century, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, are echoed. What is the matrix and direction of Bolivarian diplomacy?

 With Commander Chávez, but we can already say with Bolívar, we are configured as a subversive international actor opposing the dominant economic and political order, because we do not fear the truth, which is our path. The international spokesmen of the revolution come from this path: to tell the truth against those who dominate, those who claim to take us to the end of history, to place things in an immovable hierarchy between those who dominate and dominate, between the exploiters and the exploited.

For this reason, we can say that the goal of Bolivarian diplomacy is peace, understanding. The liberator spoke of the equilibrium in the universe, Chavez, of a multicenter and multipolar world, of a pole of balance with a result of peace, the ability to coexist not only among human beings but also with nature. A simple concept that, basically, is easy for us to follow because it is the essence of the human being: to live in peace with others and with nature.

A diplomacy outside the box, which Delcy Rodríguez led, when she was in this same position, to face the Argentine police who wanted to prevent her from entering the Mercosur meeting. How can this attitude be reconciled with tprotocol?

I do not want to blur the merits of others, but the difference between those who simply apply the protocol and the diplomacy of peace is that in Venezuela the people, the human being and community govern. We are guided by the principles, not by economic corporations; we defend the interests of the people and of all the peoples of the world, not those of the bourgeoisie.

We do not wear a straitjacket, there are no excluded or censored issues that we cannot address because it is the duty of other countries to do it for us. We respect the rules and protocols, but Venezuela will always be the voice of those who have no voice. However, unfortunately, in large international forums, many speeches are heard, but few talk about people.

 In a global system in which commercial, financial, media or military war is the dominant figure of imperialism, even the word peace is often rhetoric without a construction. What distinguishes it and what concrete impact, what margins can this strategy have? The Alba countries could not avoid the war against Libya

       For some, peace is the absence of conflict. We define it based on the principles that we have set, the ability to accept differences and respect them, enriching them on the basis of the sovereignty of all, of equal conditions and not of domination, both internally and internationally. Why should there be countries that are financially rich but do not produce, while countries rich in natural resources such as Africa and Latin America have accounts in red? It is this asymmetry that must be resolved to obtain peace.

In the international context, the allied governments of Venezuela have conflicts among them, for example, in the Middle East. What is your line of conduct even with respect to the principle of self-determination of the peoples that the Bolivarian revolution defends?

At the base, for us, there is respect for the internal processes of each country, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs. And our willingness to do everything possible to ensure that our friends, who think differently from us or among themselves, can understand each other. The common goal should be to end imperialist interests, if there are no empires, there will be no wars. The right to self-determination of peoples, for us, is essential, we are on the side of all those peoples who do not want to be dominated, who want to be free.

The international attack against Venezuela highlights the attempt of US imperialism to build artificial institutions, weakening those existing from the inside when they prevent aggression plans. Will this policy of accomplished facts leave traces of which will not be possible in the future?

 The attempt to destroy institutions that are already very weak as the OAS is evident. With the arrival of new governments, with a phase change, all this will be just a bad memory, a stain on international relations that these groups will have to justify in front of their people, and for this they will end up in the garbage of history. For us, on the other hand, it will be an opportunity to remember how we defeat once again those who tried to dominate us. The Lima Group is an element of imperialism that will leave nothing. Time will give us the right.

On October 17th, the UN General Assembly will elect 14 new members of the Human Rights Council, which includes 47 countries for a period of three years from next January. Until October 3rd, the Latin American regional group had proposed only Venezuela and Brazil for the two seats on the council, then Costa