One month after Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaido said he was assuming the powers of the Venezuelan presidency, currently held by Nicolas Maduro, the nation’s political crisis remains far from over. Tensions have escalated to the point that a full-blown civil war — a seemingly implausible scenario just weeks ago — is now becoming increasingly possible.
At least four people died and hundreds were injured in violent clashes at Venezuela’s borders on Feb. 23 and 24 as government forces opened fire on an attempt by the opposition to bring aid convoys into the country.
The Maduro regime is authoritarian, militarized and ready to kill civilians to maintain power. Society is bitterly divided between the revolutionaries inspired by Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s predecessor, and a large and aggrieved opposition. Each side despises the other. The question is therefore a complex and practical one: What to do to help guide Venezuela away from civil war and toward a peaceful and democratic future?
On this great challenge, US President Donald Trump’s administration has gravely miscalculated. When the US — along with a group of Latin American countries — chose to recognize Guaido as Venezuela’s president and ban oil trade with the Maduro government, it was betting that the pressure would be sufficient to topple the regime.
As a former senior US official told the Wall Street Journal, “they thought it was a 24-hour operation.”
This type of miscalculation predates the Trump administration. In the middle of 2011, then-US president Barack Obama and then-US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must “step aside.” Similarly, in 2003, then-US president George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished” shortly after the US invasion of Iraq. All of these cases reflect the arrogance of a superpower that repeatedly overlooks local realities.
Maduro’s ability to withstand intense US pressure is not a surprise to close observers of Venezuela’s military. The centralized structures of command and control of military intelligence, as well as the personal interests of senior officers who control major chunks of the economy, make it highly unlikely that the army would turn on Maduro. US provocation might create a schism between military commanders and more junior officers, but that would only make the plunge into a bloody civil war more likely. To date, there have been no defections among high-ranking officers with direct control of troops.
Faced with the prospect that regime change will not come quickly, the Trump administration and some parts of Venezuela’s opposition have begun seriously considering military action. Echoing language recently used in a speech by Trump, Guaido on Feb. 23 wrote that he would formally request the international community to “keep all options open.”
Similarly, US Senator Marco Rubio, who has acted as a self-appointed guru for Trump on Venezuela, warned on Twitter that Maduro’s actions had opened the door to “multilateral actions not on the table just 24 hours ago.”
Actually, these ideas appear to have been on Trump’s mind for some time. As former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe revealed recently in his book The Threat, Trump said in a 2017 meeting that he thought the US should be going to war with Venezuela.
McCabe quotes Trump as saying: “They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door.”
The comments echo Trump’s 2011 statement that Obama let himself get “ripped off” by not demanding half of Libya’s oil in exchange for US help in overthrowing then-Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
US military interventions are not driven only by economic and business interests. Being tough on Maduro is also highly popular with many Cuban-American and Venezuelan-American voters in Rubio’s home state of Florida, which will be a key battleground in next year’s US presidential election.
Advocates of US military intervention regularly cite the cases of Panama and Grenada as precedents for rapid US-led regime change. Yet, in contrast to those two countries, Venezuela has a well-armed military of more than 100,000 soldiers. Of course, the US could defeat the Venezuelan army, but one need not be blind to the atrocities of authoritarian regimes to understand that, as has happened repeatedly in US wars in the Middle East, attempts to overthrow such regimes often end in catastrophe.
Even without military intervention, US sanctions policies, if sustained, are bound to create a famine. By cutting off Venezuela’s oil trade with the US and threatening to sanction non-US firms that do business with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, the Trump administration has created one of the most punitive economic sanctions regimes in recent history. However, rather than provoking a coup, economically isolating a country that essentially feeds itself with its oil export revenues could lead to mass hunger instead.
Venezuela’s neighbors and world leaders must put aside the US military option. Venezuela needs mediation leading to new elections, not war. It also needs an urgent, interim period of political truce this year to end the devastating hyperinflation, restore flows of foodstuffs and medicines, and reconstitute the electoral rolls and institutions for a peaceful and credible election next year.
A pragmatic approach might involve the current government continuing to control the army, while technocrats backed by the opposition take control over finances, the central bank, planning, humanitarian relief, health services and foreign affairs. Both sides would agree to a timeline for a national election next year and to an internationally supervised demilitarization of daily life, with a restoration of civil and political rights and physical security in the nation.
The UN Security Council should oversee such a solution. Chapter VII of the UN Charter gives the council the mandate to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take actions to “restore international peace and security.”
The council is also the right venue pragmatically, as the US, China and Russia all have financial and political interests in finding a peaceful solution in Venezuela. All three countries could readily agree to a path to elections next year. Encouragingly, Pope Francis and the governments of Mexico and Uruguay have also offered to help facilitate mediation to find a peaceful way forward.
Trump and other US leaders say that the time for negotiation has passed. They believe in a short, quick war if necessary. World leaders — and those in Latin American countries first and foremost — should open their eyes to the risks of a devastating war, one that could last for years and spread widely.
Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of sustainable development and professor of health policy and management at Columbia University, is director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Francisco Rodriguez, chief economist at Torino Economics, served as adviser to former Venezuelan presidential candidate Henri Falcon.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS