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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US