This is an excellent article on the situation in Venezuela with intel dump as to how it ended up as it did, for those who may not have tracked this disaster. I highly recommend reading it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/magazine/can-venezuela-be-saved.html
As good as it is, one glaring omission by that writer, the 2012 gun ban for all citizens. I sent an LTE below in hopes they have the nads to publish it. I will not hold my breath, but I felt it worth a shot, no pun intended. Did I miss any major points? I did not use facts and figures intentionally as it does not tend to be effective in my experience with the intended audience:
Dear Editor. I read with great interest “Can Venezuela Be Saved?” By WIL S. HYLTON, MARCH 1, 2018. In particular, it was the most thorough in its attempt to give the reader a background how and why Venezuela is in its current predicament and getting worse. I spend time in countries such as Panama, and Colombia, and speak with Venezuelans who have had to leave their country. Some tell me it’s even worse than many know via the media, and it saddens me greatly. As thorough as that article was, it seemed to ignore a major piece of the puzzle. The article states “Venezuela is a heavily armed society and increasingly violent. To invite a military intervention is to welcome civil war.”
That is not an accurate statement. An accurate statement would be “In Venezuela, criminals, the police, and the military, are heavily armed.” In 2012, in face of rising crime, the Chavez government banned ownership of firearms by private citizens, and offered an amnesty program.(1) The result was law abiding citizens, not wanting to be criminals, turned in the majority of their firearms by the tens of thousands, leaving, predictably criminals, the police, and military armed. The result of that? Crime went from bad to worse, per capita murders rates - with firearms no less - went up, and those stats are easy to find, so I will not repeat them here.
A classic playbook from history repeats itself, a socialistic revolutionary savior, who passes sweeping laws, followed by disarming the population, “for their own good” no less, and resulting in a dictatorship and no means to resist it. That plan has been followed by so many past leaders, I lose count, yet it appears to work over and over as people ignore their history, and we all know what they say of those who ignore history… At this point, I agree that military intervention is not the solution, but sadly again, as history shows, civil war has been what results to finally dislodge a dictatorship. No one “welcomes” civil war, but unfortunately, and historically, there was no other choice left to the people to regain their freedoms.
To conclude, would the civilian population having access to firearms resulted in preventing that total loss of democracy and resulting dictatorship that now has total control? We will never know. No one however can argue the citizens of Venezuela are better off post gun ban, not by the stats, nor as it applied to history, not by any Venezuelan you’d speak to. Yes, civil wars are horrible events to be avoided at all costs if possible, and one of the reasons a government may not attempt to take total control is due to a well-armed citizenry, hence why governments historically disarm its citizens before making their bid for total control, usually under the guise of public safety. That’s exactly what happened in Venezuela, and yet, it’s not even mentioned in the media nor in an otherwise excellent piece by Mr. Hylton.
The unfortunate reality is, the citizenry of Venezuela have been put in the worst possible spot, where only criminals, the police, and the military have access to arms, and they will either need to develop an armed resistance and take back their nation, or they can sit there and hope there’s a peaceful changeover, while they starve, die of diseases not seen in many decades, flee their own country, or die from lack of simple medical care. I hope with every cell in my body a peaceful change takes place in that country full of wonderful people, but history does not bode well for that.
My heart goes out to the people of Venezuela but I suspect the world will sit back and let a major humanitarian crises continue its slow steady decent into hell for its citizens and no means of resistance, be it from common criminals or their own government. In that end, that costs far more human lives than the alternatives. As a true national savior once said:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” - Winston S. Churchill
