For the past 15 years, Venezuela has been mired in crisis, characterized by wasteful government spending, rampant corruption, growing authoritarianism, relentless human rights violations and now economic collapse. However, beyond the occasional sharp word from former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, the periodic expropriation of a foreign company without adequate compensation and some minor meddling in the elections of neighboring countries, the crisis barely registered abroad. This is no longer the case.
Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama officially classified Venezuela as an “extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” and ordered sanctions against seven officials, thereby stoking bilateral tensions. However, while the crisis in Venezuela undoubtedly has far-reaching implications, the precise motivation behind Obama’s decision remains unclear.
One possible explanation stems from the enduring passivity of Venezuela’s regional neighbors toward its plight. Countries like Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Colombia have remained largely silent in the face of recurring abuses by Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, including the imprisonment of opposition leaders, repression of public protests and media censorship. Obama may be trying to force these countries to choose sides: Either support Venezuela explicitly or support the US in opposing its leaders’ policies.
More important, Obama could be trying to drive a wedge between Venezuela and Cuba at a time when the Cuban leadership is keenly interested in improving its relationship with the US. As it stands, Cuba will sink without Venezuela — unless, of course, it finds another lifeline. The US — which in placing itself in direct opposition to Venezuela has also highlighted the country’s fragility — may be an increasingly appealing option. And, indeed, many experts anticipate the eventual normalization of Cuba-US relations, despite short-term political obstacles.
IMPEDE EFFORTS
In any case, Maduro has not taken Obama’s affront lightly. Employing the age-old tactic of exaggerating the threat of external aggression — in this case, from what Maduro, like Chavez before him, refers to as the “empire” — to justify internal repression, he has compelled the legislative assembly to enact a law enabling him to govern temporarily by decree.
To reinforce the image that a US invasion may be imminent, Maduro has mobilized the army and militia for war maneuvers. Last year, when Panama requested that the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States dedicate a regular meeting to the Venezuelan crisis, Maduro severed diplomatic relations for four months, accusing the Panamanians of joining the US in an “open conspiracy” against him.
This approach has helped Maduro obtain the support of the Union of South American Nations — a new regional bloc that issues harmless pronouncements. However, he is not done yet. He is now preparing to transform the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Panama — which Obama and, for the first time, Cuban President Raul Castro are expected to attend — into a rhetorical witch hunt against “Yankee interventionism” in his country.
Maduro seems to hope that such agitation will impede efforts by Obama and Castro to begin normalizing relations at the summit. As it stands, it is possible that they could meet bilaterally to negotiate the establishment of embassies in each other’s capitals, with the US potentially even removing Cuba from the list of countries that it counts as supporters of international terrorism.
However, with the US engaged in such a severe political confrontation with Venezuela, progress would effectively require that Cuba abandon its unconditional support for the Venezuelan regime. Given Cuba’s desperation to attract investment, tourism and trade, such an outcome is certainly plausible.
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
Of course, Cuba is not the only country facing the stark choice between intervention in Venezuela and support for Chavismo. Countries like Brazil, Mexico and Chile — all of which back neither alternative, and have rightly applauded the detente between Cuba and the US — must also consider their options ahead of the Panama summit.
Will these countries’ leaders join Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez in supporting Maduro, backing Obama into a corner in Panama? Or will they disable the trap Maduro is trying to set, perhaps even reprising Spanish King Juan Carlos I’s 2007 outburst to Chavez: “Why don’t you shut up?”
Amid these questions, one thing is certain: Latin America’s larger countries cannot continue to ignore Venezuela’s crisis. If the country’s economic collapse — the consequence of incompetent governance and the sharp fall in oil prices — is not enough to spur them to choose a side, Obama’s extreme maneuver will be. Their time for indifference is over.
Jorge Castaneda, a former foreign minister of Mexico, is a professor of politics and Latin American and Caribbean Studies at New York University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers