Biden Persists with Failed Venezuela Policy
March 17, 2021
Ramzy Baroud says it behooves Washington to engage Caracas in civil
political conversations, away from threats and sanctions, for two main
reasons.
Foreign leaders greeting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro at his second
inauguration, Jan. 10, 2019. (Presidencia El Salvador CC0, Wikimedia
Commons)
By Ramzy Baroud
Common Dreams
Recent statements made by U.S. officials suggest that Washington will
continue to pursue a hardline policy on Venezuela. The new Biden
administration, however, needs to urgently rethink its approach.
U.S. State Department Spokesperson, Ned Price, remarked on Feb. 3 that he
"certainly" does not "expect this administration to be engaging directly
with (President) Maduro." Namely, Price expects that the Biden
administration will adhere to the strategy of its predecessor, which is
predicated on completely ignoring the current government in Caracas.
Moreover, the Biden government will also continue to dialogue with
Venezuela's opposition leader, Juan Guaido. On March 2, Guaido conversed
with the new American Secretary of State Antony Blinken. It was the
highest-level U.S. contact with the increasingly-discredited and isolated
Guaido since Biden's inauguration last January. In their exchange, Blinken
and Guaido agreed on the "importance of a return to democracy in Venezuela
through free and fair elections."
It would be rational, therefore, to conclude that no significant change
regarding U.S. foreign policy in Venezuela will occur under the Biden
Administration, at least imminently. However, such a conclusion would be
hasty, as it fails to appreciate the numerous changes that have transpired
in and around Venezuela in recent years, especially since Washington
strengthened its economic sanctions on the South American country in 2015
and again, in 2017, 2019 and, finally, February 2020.
Washington's Failed Agenda
President Donald J. Trump with Juan Guaido at White House, Feb. 5, 2020.
(White House, Tia Dufour)
Washington's agenda in Venezuela has unmistakably failed, and no amount of
additional sanctions is likely to change the political outcome. Not only did
the Maduro government, ruling party, regional and international allies prove
durable and capable of withstanding immense political and economic
pressures, Washington's allies are no longer united, neither about Venezuela
nor anywhere else.
Guaido, who arrived on the scene in 2015, was elevated from being a
little-known politician to the anti-socialism hero designated by Washington
to reclaim Venezuela in the name of liberal democracy. Guaido's legitimacy
was largely derived from the Venezuelan opposition's victory in the
elections of that same year.
Since then, however, Guaido's own legitimacy has slowly eroded. By
disproportionately investing in Washington's ability to oust Maduro through
severe sanctions, diplomatic delegitimization and political pressure, Guaido
slowly abandoned his initial Venezuela-centric approach, thus delegitimizing
himself instead, even among his own supporters. Frustrated by Guaido's
self-serving priorities, and knowing that the man's current strategy would
not lead to any substantive political reordering in the country, Venezuela's
opposition disintegrated into small factions.
In January 2020, another opposition lawmaker, Luis Parra, attempted to claim
the position of speaker of parliament. This led the parliament security to
block Guaido's access to the Palacio Federal Legislativo for he, too, was
claiming the same chair. Images of the chaotic scene were beamed across the
globe.
Deep Divisions Among Opposition Parties
Venezuela's most recent legislative elections last December have also
reflected the deep divisions among the country's opposition parties, where
some strictly adhered to the boycott of the elections while others
participated. The outcome was a decisive victory for Maduro's United
Socialist Party, which now has complete control over the country's political
institutions. France24 news agency captured this new reality in this
headline: "New Venezuela Parliament leaves Western-backed Guaido out in
cold."
Actually, Blinken's call to Guaido, whose moment has faded, is unlikely to
change much on the ground. His usefulness now lies in the fact that
Washington has no other "strong man" in Caracas. Additionally, Washington
has invested tremendous financial resources and political credit which
allowed Guaido to claim the title of the country's interim president.
Completely divesting from Guaido is also a risky maneuver.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Feb. 4. (State Department, Freddie
Everett)
Of note is the shift in language in the U.S. political discourse, following
the Blinken-Guaido telephone conversation: the "importance of a return to
democracy in Venezuela through free and fair elections." The change is,
perhaps, subtle but still significant, as it is no longer a decisive demand
to remove Maduro from power.
It seems that the distance between the U.S. and Venezuela's position is
shrinking. In August 2019, The Washington Post reported that Venezuelan
negotiators, speaking on behalf of Maduro's government, made a "startling
offer" during mediated talks with the country's opposition in Norway two
months earlier, where the government "signaled (its) willingness to hold
such a vote within nine to 12 months," referring to the opposition's demand
for fresh presidential elections.
Nevertheless, it behooves Washington to engage Caracas in civil political
conversations, away from threats and sanctions, for two main reasons:
First, despite claims that the majority of Venezuelans living in the U.S.
support Washington's hardline policies, 46 percent of them also "support a
removal of oil sanctions if the Maduro government agrees to hold
internationally recognized free and fair elections," according to a recent
opinion poll published by the right-wing Atlantic Council.
Second, Washington's futile sanctions-based approach to Venezuela has proved
not only immensely harmful to the welfare of the Venezuelan people but also
to Washington's own regional interests. Washington's obstinacy allowed its
global rivals, Russia and China, to unprecedentedly cement their economic
and strategic interests in that country.
In its 2019 report, the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) revealed
that, in the 2017-18 year, U.S.-led sanctions on Venezuela "have inflicted -
and increasingly inflict -very serious harm to human life and health,
including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths."
Certainly, there can be no political logic or moral justification for this
ongoing calamity.
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the editor of the Palestine Chronicle. He
is the author of five books including: These Chains Will Be Broken:
Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons (2019), My
Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (2010) and The Second
Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (2006). He is a
non-resident senior research dellow at the Center for Islam and Global
Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is
www.ramzybaroud.net
This article is from Common Dreams.
Miriam's comment: This is a rather centrist view when it comes to this
issue. The current Venezuelan government was properly elected by a majority,
but it is a majority of poor people, which may be why even a Palestinian
activist is in favor of new elections.