As part of your sociology undergraduate course, you will most likely be expected to sit a dissertation module. For many, the dissertation may be a major source of worry particularly as it is probably the first time they have ever had to write one. The requirement to complete such a large piece of work can be daunting, especially given that a dissertation can be 6,000+ words. Some institutions allow for students to complete fieldwork in relation to their dissertation but many students either do not have the option to do so or prefer to forego the field research to concentrate on a purely theoretical exploration of a topic.

The following example is my own actual undergraduate dissertation. It is a number of years old now but rather than have it sit in a digital vault never to be seen again, I thought I would utilise it as an example for other people. Hopefully, it may offer some insight into how to do one. This dissertation scored 80+/100 making it a mid-first. It is copied verbatim and so includes any mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, or other issues as contained at the time of submission. It also includes the feedback I received after marking which will also give you insight into some of the comments you might receive. Needless to say, it is quite a long read at nearly 6400 words (not including appendices). It is ordered as follows:

• Introduction
• Methodology
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Feedback

Locating Contemporary U.S. Sources of Venezuelan Social Divisions

“Any nation’s right to form a government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable. Any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower – 34^th President of the United States of America

Introduction

Venezuela is a country with large swathes of outstanding natural beauty, where the people are considered as some of the most positive people globally and have a community spirit even among those in the extensive Barrios of Caracas, the largest slum in Latin America outside of Rio (Power, 2007: 123; Clifton, 2012). It is also rich in the natural resources of oil and minable elements such as Gold (Rosales, 2019; Monaldi, 2015; Stronen, 2017). Venezuela is known for its deeply nationalist mindset and places great esteem on its historical figures such as Simón Bolívar who is widely considered as the emancipator of Latin America from Spanish colonial rule (Chávez, 2009: vii). Its borders are shared with Colombia, Brazil and Guyana and its landscape is dominated by deep forest including its own share of Amazon rainforest (Salas, 2015: 2). From the democratic election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 to his death in 2013, Venezuela experienced significant social investment after Chávez nationalised Venezuelan oil and redistributed profit (Bistoletti, 2019: 68). The redistribution facilitated one of the most comprehensive education programs in the world which almost eliminated illiteracy (Bruce, 2008: 11). Additionally, free healthcare was provided to Venezuelans with the assistance of Cuba leading to a medical model which became the envy of even the most developed countries, and which simultaneously sought to expand humanitarian focused healthcare across Latin America (Brouwer, 2011: 18, 56). Furthermore, sharp rises in living standards for the poor and middle classes were evidenced (Ystanes, 2018: 42; Pantoulas & McCoy, 2019: 396). Today, Venezuela in 2020, under Nicolás Maduro, Hugo Chávez’s successor, is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises in history with over 4 million people having fled the country (UN News, 2019). Those who have not fled are subjected to hyper-inflation making basic goods unaffordable (Friedman, 2017; Friesen, 2018). The poverty rate now stands at 87% (Espana & Ponce, 2017), health services and medicine supplies have evaporated (Trejos, 2017; Rhodes & Valencia, 2019), supermarket shelves are empty (McGonigal & Cook, 2019; Rosati, 2018) and violent crime is uncontained (Leon, 2020: 1). It will be argued that the Venezuelan situation is not a coincidence but, rather, outcomes-in-flux deriving from US actions.

The US’ position as a dominant, semi-hegemonic power on the world economy synchronised with its bullish character derived from American exceptionalist belief and its heavy militarist inclinations facilitate the ability to be uniquely influential globally (Connor, 2020; Restad, 2014). Furthermore, the US is heavily corporatized with US corporations commanding many of the top companies globally including in the oil, health, media and arms sectors (SIPRI, 2019; Palmer, 2019; Muspratt, 2019; O’Reilly, 2016). Historically, the US has been involved in, either overtly or covertly, with or without military intervention, many regime changes globally with the aim of installing leaders favourable to US state and corporate interests (Appendix A). From the 1940’s onwards, these became more frequent and heavily focused on Latin America and the Middle East. By framing US interference in Venezuela within the loci of US geo-economics, neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism and neoliberalism as prescribed by the ‘Washington Consensus’ (Appendix B), it presents a lens through which to understand contemporary social divisions in Venezuela. Focusing on historical US behaviour globally, the aim of this paper is three-fold: to form a coherent four-point modus operandi with which the US attempts to perform neo-colonial and neo-imperialist actions to implement neoliberal globalist ideological hegemony onto other nation states; to use this modus operandi to locate the current severe economic, social and political situation in Venezuela with US origins; and to demonstrate the resulting social divisions in Venezuela. The volume of US actions globally which can be framed in this way is so significant that it is far beyond the scope of this paper thus a select number will be drawn upon to exemplify US behaviour and construct evidence for the current Venezuelan situation.

Methodology

To establish a body of evidence for historical US behaviour it was necessary to review wide-ranging literature including books, journals, web pages and leaked documents to piece together where, when and how the US behaves towards other nation states. Forming a rough timeline of events, it was possible to isolate a relevant starting point for modern geo-economic and neo-colonial interference and establish US targeted countries. Further analysis was applied to determine what types of behaviour were typical and a pattern quickly emerged. From analysing these patterns, coincidence was found with nations which have formerly been, have been converted to, or have been targeted for, neoliberalism or neoliberalisation. Applying various related terms to in-text mass document searches revealed significant evidence, much beyond the scope of this paper, which could be drawn upon providing enough evidence to establish US historical behaviours. These behaviours were then considered through the lens of the current situation in Venezuela through analysing media, academic and NGO reports, making it possible to connect Venezuela’s crisis with US behaviour. As the situation still continues at time of writing, academic works and books are not readily available thus there is a reliance on news media to view current effects on social divisions. Attempts to circumvent this limitation, however, were made by considering not only mainstream corporate media, but smaller, independent and state news media for balance.

Part one:

Exploring Historical U.S. Behaviour

In 1908, Britain discovered oil in Iran and subsequently took control of the industry under the name ‘Anglo-Persian Oil Company’ whilst syphoning the majority of profits (Bayandor, 2010: 12). In 1953, the US, at the behest of Britain, launched a coup d’état after the then democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalised Iranian oil removing what Mossadegh called the British “network of colonialism” from Iran (Blum, 2003: 63-71; Petherick, 2006: 82; Bayandor, 2010; Weiner, 2007:  81-92; Gasiorowski, 2004). Numerous techniques were employed by the CIA in the precursory stages: bribing media to print anti-Mossadegh propaganda, funding of pro and anti-Mossadegh mobs to instigate street violence, economic boycotts of Iranian oil, and bribery of military and religious leaders (Blum, 2003: 64, 67; Zepezauer, 1994: no pagination; Snider, 2009: 274; Weiner, 2007: 86). These precursory actions assisted in destabilising Mossadegh’s leadership allowing the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to take supreme rulership after the coup and reopen Iranian oil to US corporations (Harvey, 2010: 110). Subsequently, backed by US finance, the Shah founded SAVAK, a secretive police force which went on to become a violent repressive state apparatus and simultaneously cemented the US’ reputation for imperialist and colonialist interference in the middle east (Abrahamian, 1982: 419; Trento, 2005: 56). The tactics used in Iran became the blueprint for many future colonial manoeuvres including Syria 1956-58 and Costa Rica throughout the 1950’s (Yaqub, 2004; Blum, 2004: 82-84). The Iranian example outlines the US’ 4-point modus operandi: destabilisation, ousting of leader, installation of US aligned leader and finally colonisation. These will now be examined in more detail.

From 1970, with orders from US president Nixon to “make the economy scream”, the CIA worked to overthrow Chilean socialist president, Salvador Allende (Kornbluh, 2004: 1-2). Of primary focus was geo-economics, defined by Wigell (2016: 137) as “the geostrategic use of economic power”, for the purpose of destabilisation which, itself, can come in many guises. For Chile, geo-economically, this was limited to CIA backed strikes (Golinger, 2006: 102; Muñoz, 2008: 36), cuts to foreign aid (Eyler, 2008: 174-175) and pressuring US companies with Chilean operations to divest (Kornbluh, 2004: 18). However, drawing more widely upon US behaviour we see Cuba subjected to sanctions of trade and travel bans (LeoGrande, 2015: 940; Gabilondo, 2017: 52), Haiti the freezing of national assets (Staibano, 2005: 41), and Nicaragua the blocking of loans (Bothmann, 2015: 90). Whilst occasionally sanctions can be a positive move, on arms for example (Farrall, 2007: 110), they are often weaponised to prevent supplies entering a country and to disrupt vital imports such as medicine, food, and oil (Rendon & Price, 2019; Venezuela Under Sanctions, 2019). The media can also play a crucial role in destabilisation. Utilising smear campaigns, disinformation and accusations against leaders within the target country, the US manipulates public opinion both in the US and the target country. Often, significant mainstream news propaganda in support of, or uncritical of, US foreign policy or favouritism towards US corporations is disseminated concurrently (Cabellero, 2018: 241; Brouwer, 2011: 203, Bennett, 1990). The campaign against Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 by the US in light of Arbenz’ attempt to expropriate and nationalise Guatemalan land from US corporation ‘United Fruit Company’ used such a media campaign. Tales of Guatemalan communist training camps were published whilst United Fruit Company Guatemalan policy was heavily praised despite significant human rights abuses (Schlesinger et al., 2005: 88-89; Colby, 2011). Furthermore, many media outlets are subsidised by CIA funds with media propaganda absorbing up to 29% of CIA budget and can be aimed at dissolving a leaders’ legitimacy often by promoting a rival or through disinformation campaigns disseminating US refusals to acknowledge the democratically elected leader (Blum, 2003: 104). In addition to geo-economic and media methods of destabilisation, incitement of street violence also features regularly. US backed protests in Nicaragua since 2014 paralysed the country after an injection of millions of dollars of US funding to promote ‘democracy’ (Luna et al., 2019: 177-179) as well as in Japan post-world war II where the US funded ultra-nationalist and Yakuza mobs to combat the rise of leftism (Kaplan, 2012: 44).

For Chile, the aim of destabilisation was to oust Allende before he could implement a socialist system which would lead to nationalisation of US investments (Qureshi, 2009: xii). This was successfully achieved in 1973 when Allende was overthrown in a coup d’état (Girardi & Bowles, 2018: 16). Coup d’état’s are the most common form of forcibly ousting a leader from power whether by the US directly such as Grenada in 1983 or, as is more often the case, a US backed assault such as Nicaragua and Vietnam 1969-70 (Manning, 2011: 727; Hybel & Flecke, 2014: 17-54; Blum, 2003: 290-304). Either way, the premise is to install a leader favourable to US state and corporate interests (Harvey, 2007: 151). General Pinochet’s installation as military dictator in Chile after the coup against Allende signified the end of Latin America’s longest democracy and began a new era of dictatorship not only in Chile but across Latin America (Dinges, 2004: 2-3). Argentina’s Isabel Martínez de Perón was ousted in favour of US backed Jorge Rafael Videla (Lutz, 2008: 148); Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz for Carlos Castillo Armas, the first of a line of US backed Guatemalan dictators (Baldwin, 2008: 49); and Brazil’s João Goulart for Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco (Hecht, 2010: 113). This tactic however commonly ends with violent and repressive outcomes. The backing of Pinochet led to 3000 known deaths, torture and displacing over one million people (Horvitz, 2006: 78; Lazzara, 2011; Dinges, 2004); Armas and subsequent Guatemalan dictators led to hundreds of thousands of deaths in civilian massacres, genocide of Maya, concentration camps, bombing of civilians and civil war (Brett, 2016: 4; Doyle & Kornbluh, n.d.; Cullather, 1994; Schlesinger et al., 2005); Videla employed forced disappearances, torture and murder of 30,000 (Strier, 2014: 361-362; Arditti, 2002: 19; Horvitz, 2006: 22); and Branco opened up the Amazon rainforest to corporate investment and became the first in a line of ever more repressive Brazilian military rulers (Rosenbaum & Tyler, 1971: 422). Asides from the common penchant for murder and death, there exists a connection between each US backed leader and each ousted leader: the ousted leader is usually a leftist and democratically elected as is the case with Arbenz (Murphey, 2017: 32), Mossadegh (Armstrong, 2003: 77) and Goulart (Toussaint, 1999: 121); and each US backed leader is usually rightist and engages in political cleansing of leftists whether through death such as Pinochet and Videla (Kornbluh 2004: 164; Horvitz, 2006: 22) or dismantling of leftist policies as with Branco  (Dulles, 2007: 66). Perhaps to encapsulate the issue, John Foster Dulles, former US Secretary of State, once stated that Latin American dictators were “the only people we can depend on” (Westad, 2007: 148). Such a statement implies awareness of the level of unacceptability of US colonialist manoeuvres. However, the severity of the US opposition to leftist politics is of such significance that the US claimed in 1966 that in the event of a leftist election victory in Uruguay, a military invasion would be required (ibid: 151). Thus, US behaviour is clear: violence is near-mandatory, and it forms the opportunity for neo-colonisation in the structural ashes of the overturned nation.

It is in the milieu of violence where the neo-colonial enrooting of the neoliberal model takes place. Nichols (2014: 454) defines neo-colonialism as the “means by which sovereignty extends outward and is then reterritorialized through continual internal reorganization…through containment, capture and divisive social organization”. Additionally, neoliberalism is a political corporatist ideology based upon free market economics, privatisation, deregulation, retrenchment of public welfare and services and dominance of capital over everyday lives (Brown, 2015: 28) whilst simultaneously “a form of governmentality…that can be identified as interventionist…deploying state-apparatuses…to govern society” (Madra & Adaman, 2018: 113). It is the ideology of the global capitalist class, structurally pre-planned and diametrically opposed to leftist ideals (Miller, 2010: 23). The military Juntas, a state apparatus in themselves, of Operation Condor, a US backed state terror operation precipitated through Pinochet and utilising numerous Latin American leaders, carried with them the limitless repressive violence of the neoliberal restructuring apparatus both economically and socially beginning with Chile and extending outwards (Watt, 2012: 116-117; Taylor, 2006: 1). Through mass killings and containment through imprisonment of leftists across Latin America, the US deployed neoliberalism via a neo-imperialist crusade. Neo-imperialism has been defined as “the objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion” (Schumpeter, 1919: 6) with the aim of “steal[ing] the wealth generated by the people…generated by the labour power of the worker” (Maddy, 2009: 2). Through the forcible spread of violence, countries of Latin America began to adopt the neoliberal ideology. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela and Peru, for example, all underwent neoliberal restructuring (Huber & Solt, 2004: 153).  Restructuring is often shielded by the façade of a need for ‘democratisation’ within the target country due to its chaotic social and economic landscape (Watt, 2012: 117). In actuality, it is the reconfiguring of the social order both nationally and globally to align with neoliberal global capitalism (Robinson, 1997: 208). The idea of ‘democratisation’ is rendered invalid when drawing upon Chile, Iran, Guatemala and Uruguay as these were already democratic prior to US interference (Qureshi, 2009: 75; Petherick, 2006: 16; Valdes-Ugalde, 2014: 27; Shoman, 2010: 47). Before we turn our gaze towards today’s Venezuela, we can deeper analyse how neoliberalism infiltrated Venezuela historically through examining the application of the definitions of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism using a specific and pivotal example: oil.

Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world which have consistently been at the forefront of social and political divisions and are Venezuela’s leading source of national income (Wilpert, 2007: 88; Salas, 2015: 73; Peet, 2009: 193). In 1958, the three major Venezuelan political parties formed a power sharing pact called ‘Punto Fijo’ which essentially created a political corporatist alliance to prevent any other candidate from being elected (Marsh, 2016: 52). During this time oil booms and oil busts came and went and in 1979 the economy began to decline for the next two decades causing poverty to increase from 17% in 1980 to 65% in 1996 (Wilpert, 2007: 13). In 1989 Venezuela implemented a neoliberal restructuring following the election of Carlos Andrés Pérez which became known as El Gran Viraje after Pérez requested ‘structural adjustment’ loans from the IMF to tackle the economic decline (Moreno & Shelton, 2014: 283; Brading, 2012: 47). The IMF is itself a US backed neoliberal finance institution whose loans are conditional based upon the prescription of the Washington Consensus (Babb & Kentikelenis, 2018: 18; Marangos, 2008: 227). It is neo-imperialist insofar as the loan conditions force the opening of, and deregulation of, markets allowing in US multinational corporations who, in turn, extract the wealth of both people and nation (D’Arista, 2002: 22; Dutta, 2015: 11-12, Beder, 2009; Chalfin, 2010: 168). Simultaneously, neoliberalism is the colonising ideology as it carries with it US corporatism and requires internal reconfiguration of both state and society to its structural rules (Hibben, 2016: 18). Much of the oil industry was infiltrated by US multinational oil corporations sympathetic to neoliberal corporate ideology with oil wealth mostly harboured by Venezuelan elite hiding behind the neoliberal rhetoric of the ‘trickle-down effect’, a theory which assumes that wealth creation at the top will eventually make its way down to the poorest (Ewell, 1984: 193; Peet, 2009: 192; Bistoletti, 2019: 79). As part of this reconfiguration, neoliberalism commands a two-tier social structure which necessarily supports the moral relativist notion that poverty is inevitable (Dorey, 2011: 5; Lazzarato, 2017: 39). By the overthrow of the neoliberal stranglehold in Venezuela when Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998, fiscally, the Elite 10% took 37% of national income compared to 0.9% for the poorest 10% (Peet, 2009: 192) demonstrating the corruption of ‘trickle-down’ theories. Looking still deeper into the Venezuelan oil industry, we can frame it not only within the notion of an ideological state apparatus as suggested in Madra & Adaman’s (2018: 113) definition of neoliberalism, but as a starting point for locating US sources of the current situation in Venezuela.

PART TWO:

Using the Modus Operandi to Locate the Current Severe Economic, Social and Political Situation in Venezuela

The US modus operandi in Venezuela is wide ranging and complex and, as such, is beyond the purview of this work thus must be constrained to select examples. Following the establishing of the four-point modus operandi incorporating: destabilisation, ousting of leader, installation of US backed leader and neo-colonisation by neoliberal restructuring, we can utilise this to begin analysing today’s Venezuelan situation by considering Althusser’s (1971) notion of ideological state apparatuses (ISA’s) in the historicity of Venezuelan oil through to targeted destabilisation today. Althusser (1971: 145) conceptualises ISA’s as a vehicle for ideological dissemination. Dissemination occurs through religion, education, media and politics which transmit the values and attitudes expected by capitalism (Cole, 2008: 83; Wright & Roberts, 2013). Althusser (1971: 145) also conceptualises the ‘repressive state apparatus’ (RSA) which incorporates violence and control through military, prisons and policing in order to maintain capitalist power (Cole, 2008: 83; Althusser, 1971: 144-145). ISA’s still contain an element of repression although this is often covert, and RSA’s still maintain the ideological strand that controls them. The pre-Chávez Venezuelan oil industry under corporatist control was functioning as an ISA by serving the interests of the elite and simultaneously inflicting its secondary RSA function by reinforcing poverty through vastly unequal income distribution. Confusion arises however in how the neoliberal domination of a non-neoliberal state-owned asset fits into Althusser’s ISA. It can be argued that, as the oil industry was controlled by foreign corporatist ideology, it was, in fact, acting as a foreign state ISA vessel; specifically, the US. Chávez’ predecessor, Pérez, implemented neoliberal policies from the IMF allowing the oil industry to be opened to foreign companies essentially creating said vessel (Moreno & Shelton, 2014: 283). This led to major social divisions in employment, wages and rising prices and caused significant riots which in turn invoked the RSA through military attacks on protestors ultimately taking up to 3000 lives (Stronen, 2017: 38). Althusser (1971: 142) stated “the proletariat must seize state power in order to destroy the existing bourgeois state apparatus” and this is essentially what Chávez did. In successfully being elected despite a prior failed coup (Bruce, 2008: 2), Chávez, as a proletariat, seized state power and set about taking control of the ISA not only from the Venezuelan state, but from multinational corporatists (McGowan, 2011: 56-60). Although this process started in 1999, it continued until his death in 2013 demonstrating the difficulties in the process of removing neo-colonial ideology.

The importance of oil in this situation cannot be overstated and it acts as a pivotal and powerful tool in the US arsenal of destabilisation techniques. Oil is particularly vulnerable to global ‘market fluctuations’ (Rentschler, 2013). However, the ‘nature’ of oil markets is highly dubious. US shale oil over-flooded the market in 2014 in coordination with purposefully cheap Saudi oil which drove down global oil prices (Maupin, 2016). Venezuela, now presided over by Nicolás Maduro after the death of Chávez in 2013, faced a severe and continuing impact resulting from significantly declining national income (ibid). The US continues to exacerbate the situation by applying sanctions on importing Venezuelan oil which is significant as Venezuela is one of the US’ major sources of oil (Weisbrot & Sachs, 2019; US Department of State, 2016). Sanctioning however is not restricted to US imports as the US also issues threats to sanction other countries purchasing Venezuelan oil (Saefong, 2019; Paine & Zhdannikov, 2019). Additionally, the US has actively prevented Venezuela receiving help from OPEC the oil cartel in which Venezuela was a founding partner (Sharma, 2019; Fornes, 2018: 101). Furthermore, China, Venezuela’s major buyer, has withdrawn in fear of US sanctions essentially cutting off most oil exports (Wain, 2019).

Destabilisation does not end with oil, however. The US is the only country globally to impose sanctions on other countries where narcotics production occurs (Hufbauer, 2007: 15). Trump personally selected both Venezuela and Bolivia in 2017 to be nominated under sec. 706(1) of the FRAA as countries which have substantially failed to meet obligations under international counter-narcotics agreements (BINLEA, 2018: 5). Colombia, designated as having a much higher narcotics problem than Bolivia and Venezuela, was exempted on the grounds that they are “security partners of the United States” (ibid: 7) demonstrating that selection is not based on severity of a narcotics problem but rather as a tactical manoeuvre. This geo-economic manoeuvre has two faces: firstly it allows the US to undermine and commandeer obligated financial aid destined for Venezuela under Sec. 490(e) of the FAA 1961 facilitating the prevention of financial aid to Venezuela; and secondly, bilateral financial assistance programs in the ‘national interest’ of the US are still permittable under FRAA sec. 706(3)(a). The Red Cross has specifically called out this underfunding of aid to Venezuela as a purposeful “tool to destabilize the country” (Vaz, 2019a) and it is this destabilisation which is intended to pressurise Venezuela into accepting bilateral assistance which usually has strict conditionality aligned with the neoliberal Washington consensus (Corrales, 2011: 108; Appendix B). Bilateral assistance usually comes from US aligned, neoliberal agencies such as the World Bank, IMF and other IFI’s (Blakeley, 2009: 53; Appel & Orenstein, 2018: 95; Birch, 2017: 20). Further significant leverage has been applied through Trump’s freezing of Venezuelan assets in the US as well as other countries such as Japan who are under pressure to comply with US demands,  essentially cutting off another line of national income (Spetalnick & Rampton, 2019; Associated Press, 2019). Sanctions, as well as cyber-attacks, have been linked to Venezuela’s electricity blackouts due to lack of fuel and imported parts to keep it functioning (Dominguez, 2019; Vaz, 2019b). This alone caused a loss of 6.4% GDP in 2019 (Weisbrot & Sachs, 2019: 14). Perhaps most significant are large-scale food shortages due to a drop of around 80% in imports (ibid: 4) combined with substantial reductions of medical supplies (Page, 2019: 1255). Geo-economic chicanery is further exemplified through economic sanctions which are utilised in parallel to offers of aid and with sanctions targeted towards Venezuelan oil (Patel, 2019: 8). Expressed bluntly, the sanctions are weaponised to force the acceptance of aid, thus accept the neo-imperial, neo-colonial, and neoliberal conditions attached. To refuse this aid, as Maduro has, is constructed by the neoliberal corporate media as a dictatorship starving the people in what is essentially a gaslighting campaign (Daniel & Lenihan, 2019; O’Grady, 2019). Whilst economic destabilisation is clear, it also exists concurrently with the remaining three points of the modus operandi in flux.

At the time of writing, Venezuela resides in a milieu through which intersects all four-points of the US modus operandi simultaneously. Within the complexities of geo-economic destabilisation, Maduro is confronted by attempts to oust and replace him with US backed opponent, Juan Guaidó (BBC News, 2019; Gaouette & Hansler, 2019). This is simultaneously occurring alongside the attempts at neo-colonisation hidden within the aforementioned humanitarian aid; both functioning in tandem with the media who misrepresent blocking of humanitarian aid in order to discredit or malign Maduro. It is possible to isolate a connection between US aid to Venezuela, US sanctions and media false narratives of Maduro. By taking medicine as an example, US sanctions cut off Venezuela’s access to international payment systems which subsequently cut off access to medicine imports and hospital equipment (Weisbrot & Sachs, 2019: 4). This inevitably led to medicine shortages (Patel, 2019: 9). Furthermore, Venezuelan assets frozen in the sanctions represented the value of six years-worth of medicine supplies for the nation (Nebehay, 2019). The US, with the support of Guaidó, attempted to force ‘humanitarian aid’, including medicine, across the Colombia-Venezuela border and were subsequently blocked by the Venezuelan National Guard (Venezuelanalysis, 2019). The media frame this event as the act of a dictatorship (Polanco et al., 2019), criminal (Gibbs & Dixon, 2019), a way of Maduro controlling the population (Meredith, 2019), or just outright deny that economic sanctions have contributed to the situation (Trombetta, 2018). Additionally, the media also seem forgetful about previous US neo-colonial, neo-imperialist ‘humanitarian aid’ incarnations which funnelled arms to Contras in 1980’s Nicaragua which were subsequently employed in murdering literacy assistants to the poor to start with, then continued with the death of 20,000 more people (Gomez, 2003: 137-139); or the $2.6 billion dollars of direct and indirect ‘aid’ to El Salvador between 1980 and 1989 facilitating the US backed rightists of the Salvadoran state in slaughtering the rural poor (ibid: 112-113). It would be reasonable to expect that Maduro would be aware of these events. In actuality, Venezuela has been requesting aid and has been receiving it from the Red Cross (Dobson, 2019; ICRC, 2019) as well as medicine shipments from Russia (Nebehay, 2019) and further humanitarian aid from CERF, ECHO, WHO and UNICEF (WOLA, 2019). This, however, is ignored by the western corporate media in favour of constructing the aforedetailed false narrative with the intent of delegitimising Maduro in favour of legitimising Guaidó who claims presidential authority over Venezuela with US backing (Cohen & Blumenthal, 2019). The outcomes of these methods remain to be seen as they persist at time of writing. Within this milieu however, the wider public are experiencing significant resulting social divisions.

Part Three:

Demonstrating Resulting Social Divisions in Venezuela

The culmination of the US modus operandi in Venezuela has been pronounced. In 2019, the number having fled Venezuela was around 4.7 million and expected to rise to 6.5 million in 2020 (UN News, 2019). Those who cannot, or will not, leave, face spiralling social divisions. So severe is the situation that Zakrison & Muntaner (2019: 2586) claim that the US is currently committing a genocide as defined under the UNCPPCG Article II to which the US is a signatory and is thus breaking their own agreements. Food prices are astronomical in comparison to wages due to corporate entities facilitating a market for US dollars causing hyperinflation of the Venezuelan Bolívar and in despite of government price controls to attempt to stabilise food prices (Graham-Harrison et al., 2019). Severe lack of food security has led many people to lose significant amounts of weight which, through the continuum of the crisis, has led to the reappearance of malnutrition (Doocy et al., 2019a; Sequera, 2018). Already by 2016, 32.5% ate less than two meals a day. In 2017 this had risen to 63.2% and in 2018 78.6% (Denova, 2018: 198). The media commonly report that supermarket shelves are empty (McGonigal & Cook, 2019; Rosati, 2018). There also exists a counter-narrative that some supermarket shelves are full (McEvoy, 2019; RT, 2019). It seems however, that those who have access to US Dollar currency can buy groceries, and those who do not find themselves unable to do so (Pons & Armas, 2018). At time of writing, the minimum wage for Venezuela was 40,000 Bolívars per month (Pereira, 2019). Buying one kilogram of apples costs around 40,000 Bolívars; 4 toilet rolls was 30,000 and basic cold medicine around 72,000, nearly two months wages (Expatistan, 2020). Rich Venezuelans are known for their connections to Miami, Florida which Macleod (2019: 7) refers to as ‘the unofficial capital of Latin America’ where the elite often travel for shopping trips or maintain property thus giving them access to the US currency market (Salas, 2015: 3, 107). What makes this particularly interesting is that the US FAA downgraded Venezuela’s air safety rating, essentially a sanction banning flights to and from the US, which raises the question on how the Venezuelan elite are making trips to Miami (Ash, 2019). The impact of this is that those who can afford such luxury are complicit with US sanctions insofar as aiding hyperinflation by importing US dollars. This essentially causes a major social chasm between the rich and the remaining 87% in poverty (Espana & Ponce, 2017). Additionally, this has empowered US currency itself in becoming a tool of colonialism. Aside from food retailers, there are many globalist brands such as Zara, Reebok and Adidas trading inside Venezuela and these only accept payment in US dollars (Long, 2019) thus the Neoliberal corporate world has its influence within Venezuela’s retail and excludes those without access to the correct currency.

Many more divisions are pronounced including mental health associated with migration (Schwartz et al., 2018), post-emigration adaptation (Salas-Wright et al., 2020), adolescent alcoholism (Vaughn et al., 2020) and shortened life expectancy (Garcia & Aburto, 2019). However, with a poverty rate at 87% (Espana & Ponce, 2017), effects on health are significant. Alongside the aforementioned malnutrition due to food shortages, other serious health implications have arisen and shall be collated to demonstrate the wide social division in Venezuela. Sanctions have contributed to an 85% shortage of medicines (Trejos, 2017; Rhodes & Valencia, 2019). This has directly affected child immunisation availability and coincides not only with sharp rises in infant mortality and maternal mortality, but significant rises in mumps, measles, tuberculosis and diphtheria which are traditionally prevented through child and adolescent immunisation (Beyrer & Page, 2019: 286; Garcia et al., 2019; Friedrich, 2019: 1041, Rodriguez et al., 2019: 5). Medicine shortages have also significantly affected diabetes and HIV patients including delayed diagnosis and clinical shortages (Weisbrot & Sachs, 2019: 4; Doocy et al., 2019: 86; Page et al., 2019: 1257). Malaria cases have gone from around 70,000 in 2013 to 400,000 in 2018 (PAHO, 2018) and numerous other vector-borne diseases have seen significant increases (Grillet et al., 2019). Weisbrot & Sachs (2019: 21) estimate that such sanctions have contributed to 40,000 additional deaths in 2017-2018 alone which the VSC (2019: 3-4) argues fits the definition of ‘collective punishment’ under both the Geneva and Hague International Conventions which the US was again signatory to. However, these conventions are regulatory frameworks applied in times of war, in the traditional sense, and may not stretch to geo-economic ‘wars’ or ideological ‘wars’ (Fruchterman, 1983: 304). This does not make the VSC wrong as sanctions in general are considered a form of collective punishment as they target a civilian population for the actions of governments over which the population has little or no control (Horvitz, 2006: 380). As such, there seems little in the way of protection for the population except in the form of aid from NGO’s. However, NGO’s themselves play perhaps an unexpected role.

Whilst the effects on social division within the population at large are demonstrable, there is a deeper, and possibly more concerning issue: that of political division, that is, political division between those who are supposed to assist the population in times of crisis: NGO’s. What makes this particularly problematic for Venezuelan society is that, rather than simply help and assist a people and country in need, a subversive element is ‘piggybacking’ covertly under the guise of NGO’s. The International Crisis Group (ICG) (2018: i), which claims to be independent, explicitly states that sanctions are aimed at achieving “negotiated transition” and are “the best path out of the crisis” thus supporting sanctioning and an ideological transition. However, on closer examination of ICG, it is backed by corporate donors including BP (or, as formally known as, Anglo-Persian Oil Company) and has a corporate advisory council made up of neoliberal globalist corporations including Shell, Chevron and HSBC (ibid, 27). Amnesty International has repeatedly, albeit almost imperceptibly, aligned itself with Trumps numerous suggestions of military intervention in Venezuela whilst ignoring US sanctions in favour of apportioning blame on Maduro for food shortages (Amnesty.org, 2019; Emersberger, 2019). Amnesty (ibid) suggested the use of ‘universal jurisdiction’ under which the ‘responsibility to protect’ can be invoked. Such protection can involve the use of military intervention which Schabas (2012: 205-206) argues is becoming ingrained within NGO discourse. These are two examples of a wider set including HRW, known for its anti-Venezuelan biased reporting (Human Rights Watch, 2008; COHA, 2008), and IBAHRI who are partners with the neoliberal OECD (Bouhali, 2015). Even taking the academic research into account shows that there is a deep political partisanship within the research and significant and uninvestigated assumptions being made regarding causation of the Venezuelan situation. For example, Beyrer & Page (2019: 287), Rendon & Price (2019: 3-4) and Alhadeff (2018) all highlight Maduro as the root problem. This is not to suggest that Maduro is infallible however, yet each author specifically finger-points whilst clearly ignoring key information regarding neoliberal and neo-colonial ideology. For example, Alhadeff (2018) does not acknowledge US sanctions within their report, subsequently blaming economic mismanagement on Maduro’s part and a crackdown on political opposition as if the aforementioned neoliberal political cleansing of leftists was not a thing. Perhaps economic mismanagement is doublespeak for ‘not in line with the Washington consensus’ thus implying a call to the IMF is needed for economic restructuring. Ultimately, the NGO’s and various academic actors seem fixated on reigniting and reinforcing neoliberal dominance as solution, a solution which has already demonstrably failed before (Santarcangelo, 2019: 1-2), as opposed to providing a human-centred temporary safety net to help the populace whilst the Venezuelan government focus on retaining Venezuelan sovereignty and a return to social stability.

Conclusion

The first goal of this paper was to establish a four-point modus operandi with which the US attempts to perform neo-colonial and neo-imperialist actions to implement neoliberal globalist ideological hegemony onto other nation states. By drawing upon the actions of previous US interference in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina and Haiti, this modus operandi has taken shape. Through the utilisation of geo-economic manoeuvres, it has been demonstrated that destabilisation of the nation state acts as a starting point. Through employing the use of economic sanctions aimed at disrupting Venezuela’s national income as well as sanctions aimed at disrupting trade in critical goods such as food and medicine for the people, the US not only destabilises the economy but also the leadership. Evidence presented shows additional leverage is applied through media propaganda financed though covert means and funded mobs. Secondly, once a country is destabilised, the US seeks to oust the leader. Evidence has shown that there is clear political and ideological purpose in this on two points: to remove a leader oppositional to US ideology and to facilitate a political cleansing of left-wing politics. Removal is often achieved through employing coup d’états when pressure alone is not enough. Thirdly, installation of a leader favourable to US interests occurs and is currently being attempted in Venezuela through the aforementioned methods and the delegitimising of Maduro whilst recognising Juan Guaidó as rightful leader. This is the current milieu within which Venezuela currently resides. If Maduro is overthrown, the third point will be complete: installation of US aligned leader. Subsequently, it is extremely likely that that the fourth point will begin: colonisation and the neoliberalisation of Venezuela through the forcing open of markets, particularly the oil and mining industries, and a return to the authoritarian, two tiered-society experienced in the pre-Chávez era of neoliberalism. In the meantime, the failure and corruption of mainstream NGO’s in assisting people through non-partisan humanitarian means are essentially abandoning the people of Venezuela to starvation and severe health inequalities whilst the US continues its neo-colonisation and geo-economic warfare.

Ultimately, US actions have contributed to the breaking down of Venezuela as a nation state. The Economist (2018) denotes Venezuela’s gradual slide into authoritarian rule since 2014, around the time of the US / Saudi oil price slump, but this perhaps belies the fact that, under such a united effort aimed at neo-colonisation of Venezuela, Maduro has been forced to defend it through more authoritative means. The US has clearly used its unique and powerful position on the world stage to spread its own brand of dominance around the world and particularly in Latin America. Through often covert methods incorporating the clandestine CIA, left-wing leaders in opposition to US hegemony have been purposefully ousted in favour of US aligned, often brutal dictators who have subsequently incorporated repressive regimes in turn leading to uncountable loss of human lives. Considering the US’ own home-grown social problems, for example, US healthcare as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy and education unaffordable for many (Austin, 2014: 2; Kornblum, 2012: 406; Senak, 2016; Poutre et al., 2017), 38 million people in poverty and drug addiction and killing at epidemic proportions (Semega et al., 2019; Ritchie & Roser, 2019), it demands further academic enquiry into what the fundamental purpose of violently spreading such an ideology actually is when one’s own backyard crumbles under it. As Cuba, Russia and China, all opponents of the US, support the Maduro government; whilst Mexico and Uruguay sought to be intermediaries between Venezuela and the US and while Norway tentatively acts as mediator, the US openly continues to disregard preventative diplomacy seeking only the solution they desire: overthrow of Maduro, leading to significantly heightened tensions between global superpowers (Ramcharan, 2020: 99-100), mass migration and a once positive Venezuelan people facing starvation and death.

Appendix A:

Selection of Nations Subject to Historical U.S. Interference

Whilst the list of countries which the US has subjected to colonial and imperialist interference stretches back to the 19^th century, the scope of the countries referenced in this work begins with Iran in 1953. A small selection and light description of each is mentioned here along with some suggested readings.

Iran: 1953

As outlined in the paper, Iran was targeted by the US after British requests to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh to take control of Iranian oil. Under the guise of anti-communism, the CIA and Britain orchestrated a successful coup d’état to prevent the nationalisation of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company which later went on to become BP (British Petroleum). The project was codenamed TPAJAX.

Readings:

Abrahamian, 2013; Kinzer, 2008; Gasiorowski, 2004; McMurdo, 2012.

Guatemala: 1954

Under the rule of Jacobo Arbenz, Guatemala sought to expropriate land from the powerful US corporation the United Fruit Company. The company was known for its near enslavement of Guatemalan peasants and its vast ownership of Guatemalan land. The United Fruit Company was the largest land holder in Guatemala at the time. Under the codename operation PBSUCCESS, the democratically elected Arbenz was overthrown in a violent US backed Coup d’état by Carlos Castillo Armas who went on to become the head of a brutal Guatemalan dictatorship ultimately killing thousands of civilians.

Readings:

Chapman, 2007; Schlesinger et al., 2005; Colby, 2011.

Cuba: 1959 – Present

After seizing power in 1959, Fidel Castro set about a redistribution of Cuban wealth to the peasantry in addition to the expropriation of US corporate assets. Soon after, a wide ranging and complex web of US interference including sanctions and terrorism took place to try to overthrow or assassinate Castro. Cuba, aligned with Russia, became the centre stage for the Cuban-missile crisis, a standoff between the US and Russian over strategic weapons placement. The CIA partook in biological warfare, assassinations, including that of Che Guevara, and terrorism. US interference continues to this day.

Readings:

Kornbluh, 1998; Dapena, 2004; Latell, 2012.

Chile: 1973

After almost winning an election in 1958, the US set up a major CIA operation to prevent Salvador Allende from becoming President at the next election. It succeeded through mass propaganda campaigns. This continued until 1970 when Allende, despite US interference, won the election. The US set about utilising a destabilisation program which led to an economic freefall. The US then assisted General Pinochet in a Coup d’état which lead to Allende’s ‘suicide’. Subsequently, Chile fell into violent military rule leading to the US backed state terror campaign Operation Condor which spread across Latin America.

Readings:

François, 2018; Kornbluh, 2004; Qureshi, 2009.

Nicaragua: 1978-1990

Nicaragua was ruled by a family dynasty installed by previous US interference. Support by a US national guard indulging in murder, rape, contraband and drugs, helped maintain the dynasty. After this regime was overthrown by the Sandinista’s seeking to reconstruct an impoverished society created by the dynasty, President Jimmy Carter flooded Nicaragua with ‘aid’ directed at funding the ‘Contras’ and destabilising most of Nicaragua’s major industries. The Contras subsequently ran a campaign of barbarism against the Nicaraguan population including severe human rights atrocities encouraged by the provision of a CIA technical manual instructing them on how to run such a violent campaign. Eventually, after years of war, the US backed opposition political party UNO, in a bought election, saw the Sandinista’s lose power.

Readings:

Perla, 2016; Garvin, 1992; Brown, 2001; Dickey, 1985.

Haiti: 1986-1994

After decades of violent oppression, Haiti’s violent ruling family, the Duvalier’s (AKA Papa Doc and Baby Doc), were forced from Haiti. In their place, a new election was to be held with a high likelihood that a priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a liberation theologist who helped teach the poor about ideas of resistance against authoritarian oppression, would win. The US along with the CIA launched a campaign to prevent him coming to power. Aristide triumphed even in the face of rigged elections against him. However, after a few months in power, and after providing hope to the Haitian people of a new beginning free of tyranny, a coup violently overthrew Aristide and a new military regime began a new era of human rights abuses. While there is no apparent evidence to suggest US interference in this coup, the military regime was CIA trained in brutality. The US, this time, rather than interfere, simply left the country to fall into violence on its own accord. 

Readings:

Aristide & Wargny, 1993; Podur, 2012; Sprague, 2012.

Appendix B:

The Washington Consensus

The Washington consensus is a set of 10 policy instruments with which the US believe can realistically be ‘implemented’ in other nations. These are:

1. Fiscal restraint: as imposed by IMF conditionality to maintain low deficit (often through austerity)
2. Public expenditure reduction: this is unnecessary as tax revenues can be increased but spending reductions are always preferred by the right wing
3. Tax reform: widening the tax base and incorporating marginal tax rates
4. Interest rates: should be determined by the market and be positive to prevent capital flight
5. Exchange rates: to make exchange rates as competitive as possible
6. Trade policy liberalisation: anti-protectionist measures, removal of restrictions
7. Foreign direct investment: facilitating an inward influx of foreign investment. The US is anti-economic nationalism for other nations but not for itself.
8. Privatisation: transfer of state assets into private corporate hands
9. Deregulation: removal of restrictions to facilitate increased competition
10. Property rights: strong property rights fundamental to the operating of the capitalist system

(Williamson, 1990; Marangos, 2008: 230-231).

Feedback

Reviewer 01

The dissertation relies on an impressive body of literature. Its analysis of USA’s political interference in Venezuela, Latin America, and beyond is thus very detailed and has remarkable historical depth. The dissertation makes use of pertinent theoretical frameworks, although some of these would have deserved a more subtle use. For instance, more recent theories of neo-imperialism could have been introduced. Also, while the understanding of Venezuelan oil as ISA is interesting, Brian should have further defended this analysis, making it clearer how oil serves an ideological function. The historical reconstruction has the issue of not dealing with geopolitical context – for instance, the transformations occurred after the Cold War should have been taken into examination. Another problem of contextualisation has to do with the analysis of Venezuela, and this is, to me, the main problem with the work. There is little discussion of local politics, social organisation, and conflicts. Of course, while it is absolutely legitimate to consider the US strategy as the prime factor of social disgruntling, no social scientist would think societal conflicts purely derive from external influence. Some more attention to the local political dialectics should have thus been presented, linking it to discussion on the local elites joining the side of USA (which appears in the text). In the same vein, while no analysis of the Venezuelan crisis can ignore the geopolitical stakes it has, and US influence, the author should have at least discussed some endogenous theories of the crisis, such as the ones about the failure of many resource-based states in diversifying their economy. In this sense, the dissertation reads, at times, more like a pamphlet than like an academic analysis. Finally, the analysis of NGOs role in constructing consensus against Maduro should have been more consistently carried out.  

The dissertation lacks abstract and ethics form.  

Reviewer 02

Overall this is a piece of work which demonstrates strong research skills and a high level of competence in terms of academic writing and presentation.  It offers a rich case study of politico- structural origins of social divisions, providing an original synthesis of available research to identify a ‘4-point modus operandi’ which attributes current social divisions to US policy.  The value of this analysis is attested with a number of examples before applying this to the case of Venezuela. The dissertation is an accelerated immersion into substantive detail and analysis that deserves much credit.  It is a case study illuminative of political sociological concerns and as a piece of historical sociology.  It draws on Althusser’s notions of RSA and ISA to make sense of politically motivated structural adjustment.  The dissertation would have been further strengthened by further development of its framing as a political sociological and historical sociological analysis.  For example, the following deserve greater introduction to set the dissertation up: structural versus individual explanations for poverty and inequality; locating the case study vis-à-vis political sociology and economic sociology as sub-disciplines; critiques of methodological nationalism as insufficient to explain national issues and including in this a discussion of Government/ governance/ governmentalities in relation to the politics of economic globalisation; the notion of ‘structural adjustment’ as top-down policy and bottom-up experience. Within the word count restrictions, it would have been impossible to address all these elements and succeed in the depth of case study presented.  A suggestion, were the piece to be developed/ adapted for publication, would be to clearly locate a selective representation of the case study to particular theoretical debates and disciplinary foci.