Alejandro Peña Esclusa is a Venezuelan engineer, writer, analyst, and political consultant. A pioneer of the first protests in his country against the Chavista regime, Peña was imprisoned for a year in El Helicoide (a prison notorious for its torture) and he remains a political prisoner of conscience. An expert on the Sao Paulo Forum, he has written five books on the subject.
The Puebla Group just finished its 9th meeting in Mexico. Why is it important to know what was discussed by the Ibero-American Left at this meeting?
For Europeans, it is very important to know what was discussed in Mexico because it reflects the thinking of international progressivism. They are unveiling the global project of the Left. In recent years, Latin America has been a laboratory for progressive ideas—which are then exported to the United States, Europe, and elsewhere—such as electoral fraud. Unlike the Sao Paulo Forum, which is made up of political parties, the Puebla Group is made up of personalities, and many of its members—the vast majority—also belong to the Forum.
One of the issues highlighted was support for immigration and open borders.
Yes, they have a precedent to take inspiration from. The Mariel exodus was an operation by Fidel Castro in which thousands of Cubans left for the United States in 1980. Now, we see massive illegal immigration of people who are not victims of a humanitarian crisis. Even the definition of economic migration falls short. What is happening is a population war: the Left is using migrants as a tool of war and destabilisation. It is a deliberate, conscious, and planned procedure with international support. Europe must investigate this population war, which is especially directed against Italy and against the government of Giorgia Meloni.
I am not talking about migrants, who are victims and cannon fodder; the Left does not care whether they die crossing a river or the Mediterranean. Migrants are exploited by mafias politically allied with the Left, and then used to create a conflict situation in the destination countries. The governments of the United States and Europe are manipulated into giving them asylum and all kinds of subsidies on humanitarian grounds. Those who do this know very well that the volume of this migration cannot be absorbed in a reasonable way by the destination countries. They also know that these migrants will not solve their problems in their new countries. Many will end up living in crime or poverty. I am Venezuelan and, like eight million of my compatriots, I had to leave my country. I am not talking about these people, but about those who use them as a tool for destabilisation.
Communism destroys the economy and turns a country like Venezuela, the richest in Latin America, into the poorest, in terms of per capita income, along with Haiti. They force the migration of eight million people whose lives they destroy and who do not want to leave Venezuela, send them to the United States and other countries—where in many cases they cause problems—and then blame everything on the United States and Europe because of sanctions. It’s a huge lie. The economic crisis in Venezuela started long before the sanctions. The main economic sanction that Venezuela is experiencing is corruption.
Yes, at the meeting, it was repeated once again that the United States is responsible for the economic disasters in Cuba and Venezuela. The victimhood that has always characterised the Left was on display.
That’s right. In reality, it is the disastrous communist model that destroys the economy by confiscating private property and violating human rights. Moreover, most of the sanctions are not against the countries, but against those responsible for these policies. The Left always plays the victim, but it is the aggressor. And we have another example in the influence of the Latin American Left in Africa. This has a precedent in the 1970s when Cuba sent troops and advisors to Mozambique, Angola, and Zambia. But they did not leave and their influence increased with Chávez and the petro dollars. Now the idea is to use the governments financed by the Sao Paulo Forum as a tool against Europe.
In Africa, Russia is financing and supporting ’anti-colonialist movements,’ and the Wagner Group is active in several African countries. China has also established a presence in the continent. Is the Sao Paulo Forum collaborating with Russian and Chinese activities?
Of course, the relationship of Russia (formerly the USSR) with Cuba is well known, as is its support for guerrilla movements throughout Latin America. Now, Russia’s main ally in the region is Venezuela, where there are even Russian military advisors. While Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, was at the Puebla Group meeting, her brother Jorge Rodríguez, president of the Chavista Congress, was at a meeting in Moscow. As for China, it is a country that is increasingly present in Latin America through strong economic and infrastructure investments. Politically there is an organic relationship between the Sao Paulo Forum and the Chinese Communist Party, and they hold regular meetings. During the Mexico meeting, Evo Morales was warmly applauded when he expressed his satisfaction that the United States is in decline and the new world power is China.
The Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez, spoke at the Puebla Group meeting via video conference. Is the Socialist Party now the representative of the Sao Paulo Forum in Spain?
That is what it seems. Podemos was created by the Sao Paulo Forum with the money of Chávez, Correa, and Morales. Now Pedro Sánchez’s relationship with the Sao Paulo Forum is being shown publicly—a relationship that undoubtedly goes way back. If Pedro Sánchez had not agreed with the objectives of the Puebla Group, he would never have allowed José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero or Dolores Delgado to be part of that organisation. It must be made very clear that communism is an internationalist ideology and that it continually seeks allies. The Puebla Group has always thought of Spain as a bridge to Europe, which is why it financed Podemos and other parties in Slovenia, Greece, and Italy.
The Puebla Group has affirmed its commitment to the most progressive values: gender, LGBT, abortion, etc. But is there still a more ’traditional’ Latin American Left that rejects these values?
The progressive current, led by Petro and Boric, is pushing this line and, little by little, the more traditional Left is adapting to this change of values. For the moment, they have already adopted the whole discourse of climate alarmism. Petro speaks of the decarbonisation of the economy—the Western economy, of course, because Russia and China will never do this—something that in the long run will only mean the economic ruin of the United States and Europe. Petro declared in January of this year, after Lula’s inauguration, that in order for what happened in 2009—when the Sao Paulo Forum controlled 14 countries and lost that control—not to happen again, it is necessary to ally with the progressive sectors of the United States and Europe, and become the spokespersons of international progressivism in Latin America. Fortunately, all these progressive ’values’ have not managed to take root as much in Latin America as in the United States and Europe, because we are talking about peoples who still have a strong attachment to the traditional family and religion. Let us remember Boric’s failure in Chile when he wanted to impose a progressive constitution.
What conclusions can we draw from what happened at this meeting of the Puebla Group?
This meeting has shown how the Puebla Group works with the progressive sectors in the United States and Europe, and their ties with the most radical sector of the U.S. Democrats. Gustavo Petro even belongs to the Progressive International of Bernie Sanders. Right now, the Puebla Group is selling the bear’s skin before it hunts it. In the words of its general coordinator, Marco Enriquez-Ominami: “We are growing. We are the power option in the region and we are the alternative to chaos,” saying all this surrounded by the fugitive from justice Rafael Correa; by Evo Morales, who perpetrated an electoral fraud in Bolivia; by Delcy Rodríguez, representative of the Venezuelan dictatorship; by Bruno Rodríguez, representative of the Cuban tyranny; by Lula, Dilma, Kirchner, all convicted of corruption, and so on. I wondered when the police would arrive to take them all to jail.
The Puebla Group presents itself as a triumphant option for power, but the latest results have been a setback for its objectives: they lost in Paraguay and Chile, and everything indicates that they will lose in Argentina and even in Ecuador. In addition, Gustavo Petro has been denounced by his own son and has serious judicial problems. Gabriel Boric experienced the highest level of rejection in Chilean history. Their situation is complicated and that is why it is urgent for the Right and the centre-right to join forces as the Left has done, and of course, to fight the cultural battle in defence of Western values.
