US President Donald Trump’s talk of a “military option” in Venezuela risks alienating Latin American nations that overcame their reluctance to work with the Republican leader and had adopted a common, confrontational approach aimed at isolating Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s embattled government.
Well before Maduro himself responded, governments in Latin America with a long memory of US interventions were quick to express alarm over what sounded to them like saber-rattling.
Even Colombia — Washington’s staunchest ally in the region — condemned any “military measures and the use of force” that encroach on Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Illustration: Mountain people
Maduro has long accused Washington of having military designs on Venezuela and specifically its vast oil reserves.
However, those claims were dismissed by many as an attempt to distract from his government’s failures to curb problems such as widespread shortages, spiraling inflation and one of the world’s worst homicide rates.
“For years he’s been saying the US is preparing an invasion and everyone laughed, but now the claim has been validated,” said Mark Feierstein, who served as former US president Barack Obama’s top national security adviser on Latin America. “It’s hard to imagine a more damaging thing for Trump to say.”
The timing of Trump’s remarks could not be worse, coming on the eve of a four-nation Latin America trip by US Vice President Mike Pence intended to showcase how Washington and regional partners can work to promote democracy.
This week in Peru, foreign ministers from 12 Western nations condemned the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela and refused to recognize a new, pro-government assembly created by Maduro that is charged with rewriting the Venezuelan constitution, but is seen by many as an illegitimate power grab.
The US did not take part in the meeting, a show of deference to countries historically mistrustful of heavy-handed policies out of Washington.
Suspicion and resentment linger in many corners of the region, a reflection of years past when US troops did in fact invade parts of Latin America to oust leftist leaders or collect unpaid debts.
Yet a number of leaders, amid prodding from the Trump administration, have lately been overcoming their reluctance to intervene in a neighbor’s internal political affairs after looking the other ways for years on Venezuela.
For the first time, leaders have started using the D-word — dictatorship — to describe Venezuela’s government and have recalled their ambassadors from Caracas in protest.
Peru on Friday went so far as to expel Venezuela’s ambassador and last week the South American trade bloc Mercosur suspended Venezuela for breaches of the group’s democratic norms.
Even more surprising, with the exception of close ideological allies such as Cuba and Bolivia, no country spoke out against Trump’s decision to slap sanctions on more than 30 Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, despite past criticism of similar unilateral actions.
Not even the frustration over Trump’s decision to partially roll back Obama’s opening to Cuba — a diplomatic thaw that was applauded across the region’s political spectrum — or his constant talk of building a border wall to keep out immigrants got in the way of presenting a united front toward Maduro.
However, the swift reaction to Trump’s “military” remarks shows there is no appetite in the region for US troops to get involved.
On Saturday the nations of Mercosur, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying: “The only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “violence and any option that implies the use of force.”
US engagement with other countries has not been constant and may have benefited more from the deteriorating situation in Venezuela than any concerted diplomatic outreach.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in June skipped a key meeting of the Organization of American States, depriving some Caribbean countries that depend on Venezuelan oil shipments of the political cover they were looking for to abandon their support for Maduro.
Under the advice of Pence and Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Trump appears to have taken an interest in Venezuela and even met at the White House with the wife of a prominent jailed opposition leader.
That in turn has emboldened Maduro opponents, who have been protesting for four months demanding he give up power.
Their efforts could be undermined if Maduro expands his crackdown on dissent, arguing as he has in the past that their tactics are a prelude to a US-backed coup.
Only this time he can point to Trump’s words as evidence.
Pence arrived in Colombia on Sunday to begin his Latin America tour, during which discussions on how to deal with Venezuela are expected to feature prominently.
Instead he might be forced to do damage control, said Christopher Sabatini, executive director of Global Americans, a Web site focused on US policy in the region.
“He’s about to get an earful,” Sabatini said. “The eagerness of Trump and some people around him to mouth off without any idea of context is really damaging not only to US policy, but also regional stability.”
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS