What is Next for Washington After Its Failed Venezuela Strategy?
August 17, 2020
Its come out in the open now in Washington that the Trump administrations
Venezuela policy is an embarrassing failure but will the next administration
wise up, or double down?, asks Steve Ellner.
By Steve Ellner
Special to Consortium News
Senator Chris Murphys recent characterization of U.S. policy toward
Venezuela as an unmitigated disaster makes it conspicuously clear that
many in the political establishment recognize the need for a change in
course. The statement by such an influential Democrat may signal a policy
revision toward Venezuela, though not particularly comprehensive, on the
part of a Joe Biden administration.
Murphy (CT-D), who made his remarks to Special Representative for Venezuela
Elliott Abrams at an Aug. 4 Foreign Relations Committee hearing, pointed out
that dissension within the Venezuelan opposition threatens the leadership of
self-proclaimed president Juan Guaidó. Murphy asked Abrams: Is Juan
Guaidó [for the Trump administration] going to be the recognized leader of
Venezuela permanently, no matter how conditions change on the ground?
The question was a good one because the success of Trumps Venezuela
strategy is predicated on Guaidós continued undisputed leadership. Theres
no fall-back strategy.
Since Guaidós self-proclamation on Jan. 23, 2019, Washington has gone all
out to gain world-wide recognition for him and to undermine President
Nicolás Maduros grip on power. But regime change attempts have turned into
one folly after another, including a U.S.-backed military coup attempt on
April 30, 2019, and a military incursion from Colombia this May. Even Trump
admitted that the politically untested Guaidó (who just turned 37) has not
been up to the task.
Murphy stated at the Senate committee hearing our big play recognizing
Guaidó right out of the gate
just didnt work.
Yet one would think from the words and actions coming out of the White House
that just the opposite was happening: that Guaidó was on the verge of
toppling Maduro. Every couple of days the Trump administration, eager for a
resounding success to be parlayed into votes in November, escalates its war
on Venezuela, which it considers to be a more vulnerable target than Iran.
On June 14, Trump boasted that four oil tankers en route from Iran to
Venezuela were forced by the U.S. to proceed to Houston.
The same day a State Department spokesman touted the success of its maximum
pressure campaign in which more and more global shipping fleets [are]
avoiding the Iran-Venezuela trade due to our sanctions, which are now being
used to threaten shipping companies, insurance companies and ship captains,
among others.
Washingtons lingering hope is undoubtedly that the situation in Venezuela
will go from bad to worse.
This was alluded to by think-tank analyst and State Department advisor Evan
Ellis in his report Venezuela: Pandemic and Foreign Intervention in a
Collapsing Narcostate. Ellis points out that Covid-19 now promises to
transform the Venezuelan crisis into a broader one. He adds the death
sentence implied by the disease could be the final straw in disintegrating
the remaining discipline of the military and other security forces.
Murphys Arguments Good and BadMurphys arguments at the Senate hearing were
pragmatic, not principled. His position that Trumps Venezuelan strategy
hasnt worked suggests the possibility of a distancing of a President Biden
from Guaidó. Murphys stand has positive and negative implications. Positive
because it comes from a party whose main leaders zealously applauded
Guaidós presence at Trumps State of the Union address in February.
(Remember Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing up and clapping, in
contrast to her reaction to almost everything else Trump said that evening.)
The decision to cease calling Guaidó president would be a tacit
recognition that Washington had blundered in turning over billions of
dollars in Venezuelan assets, including CITGO, to Guaidós parallel
government. This is no small failure. The activist role of the Trump
administration in trying to get other countries, organizations and
corporations including Russia, China, Cuba and, believe it or not, Iran to
comply with the sanctions against Venezuela has few parallels in history.
Washingtons case for sanctions is underpinned by the argument that Guaidó
and not Maduro is the rightful president of Venezuela. A distancing from
Guaidó would detract from this campaign and undermine U.S. prestige, at
least in the short run.
Murphy, to his credit, recognized that the opposition in Venezuela is
bitterly divided. The Trump administration dismisses the oppositions
anti-Guaidó bloc as consisting of rogue politicians, some of whom it has hit
with sanctions. But recently, the Catholic Church hierarchy, which has
vehemently opposed Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chávez, sharply
criticized the pro-Guaidó bloc for refusing to participate in parliamentary
elections slated for December.
On August 11, the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference issued a document which
stated abstentionism deepens the social-political fissure in the nation and
the lack of hope toward the future. In another recent development, Enrique
Mendoza of the social Christian COPEI party became the latest in a list of
long-standing political leaders who are participating in the December
elections. The U.S. media says little of news items like this one which
discredit Guaidó and his allies.
The Real Lesson
But Murphys position is a far cry from addressing the real issues and the
lessons that need to be learned from the Guaidó fiasco, namely the
importance of respect for national sovereignty. Rather than facing the
issue, Murphy rebuked Abrams and Trump for not being more intelligent in
trying to achieve regime change.
The senator told Abrams: We could have used the prospect of U.S.
recognition or sanctions as leverage and could have done more to consult
our European allies and to talk to or neutralize China and Russia at an
early stage. In short, all we did was play all our cards on day one, and it
didnt work.
Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald slammed Murphys line of
reasoning in defense of U.S. hegemony, saying Murphy was furious that
America under Trump lost is natural right to control who governs
Venezuela.
The issue of national sovereignty is manifesting itself in Venezuela in the
debate between the pro and anti-Guaidó opposition factions, a development
the U.S. media is also oblivious to. The anti-Guaidó faction has taken up
the national sovereignty banner. Miguel Salazar, president of the
conservative COPEI party, recently stated (in the words of El Universal)
the international community has exacerbated the [Venezuelan] conflict even
though the resolution of problems has to be in Venezuelan (hands) and not
subject to the guidelines of the United States.
The banner of national sovereignty is being raised by Washingtons two major
adversaries on the world stage, China and Russia, in their pronouncements on
Venezuela in a way that enhances their international reputation. Indeed, the
United States is increasingly finding itself isolated on the world stage, as
made evident in last Fridays humiliating defeat at the UN Security Council
where the U.S. counted only on the vote of the Dominican Republic for its
proposed renewal of the boycott on arms sales to Iran.
Although it is highly unlikely that a President Biden will do a complete
turnaround on Venezuelan policy, a more hands-off approach would go a long
way in easing tensions in that nation and achieving for Washington a degree
of respect around the world.
Steve Ellner, a retired professor at the Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela),
is currently an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. He
is the editor of Latin Americas Pink Tide: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings
(2020) and Latin American Extractivism: Dependency, Resource Nationalism and
Resistance in Broad Perspective (to be released).