The UK has backed the US in supporting Juan Guaidó, head of the parliament in Venezuela, against the elected President Nicolás Maduro. Even if Maduro fixed the election it is a short-circuit to go from there to intervention – as we have now.
The UK’s Foreign Secretary has said: “This regime has done untold damage to the people of Venezuela, 10% of the population have left Venezuela such is the misery they are suffering”. “Regime” is a keyword. Despite doubts over the integrity of the recent elections in Venezuela the current President still has more claims on democracy than, say, the leaders of Saudi Arabia who we are unlikely to find the UK Foreign Secretary calling a “regime” (bad for business). “Regime” legitimises intervention. And we know where that ends up… Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya. No stand-out success stories there. Just lots of corpses.
As for people leaving because of the economic problems caused by the “regime”. It may be true that the government is partly responsible for the economic crisis in Venezuela. However; US sanctions have played a significant part. These sanctions include prohibitions on US citizens financing government debt or investment in the state oil company in Venezuela. The effect of this will have been to make oil production more expensive which means in turn less government revenue. The crisis, the “misery”, which Jeremy Hunt cites as a reason to conduct a regime change operation in Venezuela is in fact something which has (at least partly) been caused by them. (US and UK are synonymous in Foreign Policy terms). An enormous lie. And one which will most likely pass by 100% unquestioned by the media – as it does, for example, in this Guardian article.