U.S. Troops in Latin America

The New York Times reported on U.S. troops in Latin America. There's plenty to unpack here.

First, there is no goal at all, which the article points out. Wander around until you shoot or get shot at? This will end up killing innocent people for no gain. That will not matter to a U.S. audience until a U.S. soldier is killed, though I can't be sure people will care much even then. But objectively, it's a disaster for human rights. Plus, as I've written ad nauseum over many years, these operations will not stem the flow of drugs. They're largely for show, a testosterone-laden theater in the jungle. Probably miserable for the soldiers to boot.

Second, what happens when new presidents are elected that don't want these troops? That may not be a problem if someone else is president in the U.S. But for right now, we know the Trump administration likes forcing out governments, and of course the U.S. has a long history of it. That will hang over the region for a while.

But here is the part that shows the highest level of illogic.

Earlier this week, Gen. Joseph A. Ryan, who heads the Army’s Western Hemisphere Command, described the stark challenges the U.S. military faces as it returns to a region that for decades has not been its main focus. It is a part of the world where China has growing economic leverage, and where drug cartels have built sophisticated global networks to sell their illicit products, he said.

“We have ceded economic dominance in the region to an adversary, and that is a fact,” General Ryan said in remarks on Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “We are fighting now to retake terrain — maritime and land, human terrain, cognitive terrain — in many cases that we’ve given up previously.”

Sending troops has nothing to do at all with China's economic influence. It will certainly not reduce it. You're retaking "cognitive terrain"? Say what? Maybe he thinks that Latin Americans will be so happy at the sight of U.S. soldiers that they will stop buying Chinese products. How anyone could think that is beyond me. 

Read more...

Nicaragua Denies US Ambassador

The Nicaraguan government rejected Natasha Franceschi as the U.S. Ambassador. I immediately wondered whether she was a Trump political connection, but no (and perhaps his connections don't want Nicaragua anyway!). She's a career diplomat with long experience. There hasn't been a U.S. ambassador in Nicaragua for three years.

At first this puzzled me. Given what happened in Venezuela and is currently happening in Cuba, I couldn't understand why Daniel Ortega wanted the Trump administration spotlight on him, especially when it seems like the ambassadorial choice was a professional. Then I looked at her testimony from her nomination hearing.

If confirmed, I will sustain diplomatic pressure toward a solution in Nicaragua that

advances American prosperity and security. 

It is well past time that Nicaragua return into the fold of prosperous American

nations, free from totalitarianism.

Then it made more sense. That was pretty blunt. Nicaragua does not get in the U.S. news much but bilateral tension is definitely rising and I could imagine Trump seeing this as a personal slight. That said, Nicaragua does not have much to offer him in economic terms and can't reduce the price of gas in the U.S.  As always, stay tuned.

Read more...

Marco Rubio's Venezuela Messaging

The State Department has a quick summary of Marco Rubio's meeting with Dinorah Figuera and it's as weird as everything else in this saga. Here's part of it:

He highlighted this year’s steps toward establishing an independent Supreme Court of Justice, the release of over 1,200 political prisoners, the recently restored access to blocked media websites, and efforts to reform the Law Against Hatred as important milestones toward restoring fundamental freedoms for the Venezuelan people. 

Looking ahead to the next round of talks beginning October 14, the Secretary urged continued progress on political freedoms and electoral reform, which would lay the groundwork for free, fair, and credible elections in Venezuela.

This is the language you use when you don't have all the leverage. "Recently restored" media could have been restored in early January. The hate law could've been pushed months ago. Rubio "urged" continued progress?

The U.S. invaded the country and could have restored many freedoms a very long time ago, but chose not to. I understand that stability was favored over democracy. But abrograting the hate law wouldn't undermine stability--it would just stop innocent Venezuelans from being targeted for their political beliefs. Low-hanging fruit.

Instead, we have this scenario where the U.S. portrays the two sides are equal. In democratic transition terms, it's a bizarre combination of imposition and pacted. The former (which is rare unless you include foreign use of force) involves force while the latter involves compromise. Venezuela thus becomes a combination of the U.S. overthrowing Manuel Noriega and the Chilean dictatorships negotiated with the opposition, which I think would be unfathomable to all the scholar studying this 30ish years ago. It also confounds predictions of outcome. We hope it ends up like Chile, where the repressive apparatus was dismantled and elections persisted (even if the military's role remained strong for a long time). For now, it's like Chile where military internal intelligence remained going strong.

Read more...

Maria Corina Machado Makes Her Pitch

María Corina Machado published an op-ed in the New York Post three days ago about why she needs to return and Venezuela needs to hold free and fair elections.

First off, why the New York Post? I mean, I guess it doesn't really matter since people will read it regardless, but it's a tabloid. That said, it's conservative and has ties to Trump.

Her points are pretty straightforward and while careful to praise Trump, she makes it clear that you can't continue to have positive relations with an illegitimate government. You can't have certainty with a rickety and thoroughly corrupt dictatorship. She makes a point directly aimed at the administration's oil deals, which is that you can't guarantee contracts with the current regime.

Donald Trump's response: "Well, I'll say one thing: she is an excellent woman. She gave me her Nobel Prize because she knew I had earned it, and she is an excellent woman, and everything is going to turn out fine."

It's a beautiful blend of narcissism and vagueness.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio denies that anyone blocked her return and a coordinator of Vente Venezuela said she might return "within hours."

Stay tuned.

Read more...

FRUS South America publication

I was very happy to see that the Foreign Relations of the United States series published part of the South America, 1981-1988 documents. It's been languishing. Unfortunately, the Chile and Argentina chapters are not yet out, as I would love to see those. This time around it's Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Here is a bit from a meeting Alexander Haig had with the foreign minister of Paraguay in 1981. Recall that dictator Alfredo Stroessner was still around (he didn't get overthrown until 1989) so human rights violations were rampant in the country.

And, of course, Haig had no interest in human rights:

The Secretary described human rights as a “residual problem” which we will address as one friend speaking to another and through diplomatic channels. He said his own preference would be to use the term “personal liberties” rather than human rights because the very term human rights has unfortunately become loaded with emotional and political connotations. In addressing human rights matters, it is important that we not lose sight of the security concerns that the countries of this hemisphere share.

What Haig is saying, just as Henry Kissinger said to dictatorships in the 1970s, was that attacking perceived Marxists was perfectly fine. The Paraguayans got the message loud and clear:

The meeting concluded with reiteration of expressions of good will and certainty that relations will improve steadily. As they were departing, the Paraguayans commented that this meeting marked a very sharp contrast with the recent past. They were delighted with their reception and the length of the meeting.

They are referring to Jimmy Carter and his four years of at least trying to focus on human rights. Incidentally, the meeting lasted fifty minutes. It consisted primarily of talking about Cuba and Marxists. The Carter era was officially over.

Read more...

Delcy Ditches Maduro

This is par for the course in the weird Venezuela political saga. Delcy Rodríguez did not request Nicolás Maduro's release or invoke his immunity as head of state. As a matter of fact, Delcy has already requested  that immunity for herself for a lawsuit against her in the United States. It's good old stab in the back.

It is true that even prior to Trump, the U.S. government said over and over that it did not recognize Maduro as president, constantly calling him illegitimate. Then the Trump administration did recognize her after the invasion because she was willing to kowtow. 

The problem, of course, and one that keeps coming up, is that Delcy was in the same illegitimate government. She was the illegitimate vice president. She has illegitimate stamped all over her. She has zero constitutional bearing in the country but is recognized de facto by the United States (not to mention the armed forces) so that's that. As always, aside from Maduro himself the losers in this situation are the Venezuelan people.

Read more...

Reforming Venezuela's Hate Law

Delcy Rodríguez requested the legislature "partially" reform the Law Against Hate, which has commonly been used to attack Venezuelans exercising their constitutional right to free speech. Here is a quote from her:

Rodríguez dijo que se hizo “uso abusivo de esa ley.... pero yo creo en los principios de esa ley, el principio de la tolerancia, el principio del amor en relacionamiento, que no se imponga el odio”.

This is yet another example of how bizarre this situation is. Yes, the law was abusive, though in fact it was intended to be. By her own administration.  

In her social media post, she said she asked for a "reforma parcial." It is to "corregir desviaciones en su aplicación." All this flowery, passive voice intended to deflect from the fact that she is complicit in all the abuses. The law should be stricken in its entirety and hopefully that actually happens.

We need to wait and see what happens, of course, but still this is an important step forward. The Hate Law is only one of many overlapping laws (it's actually easy to lose track of them because there are so many) justifying attacks on Venezuelans but it's a prominent one.

 

Read more...

What Do Venezuelans Think of the Current Situation?

We have another Venezuela poll from Meganálisis. Tellingly, the first page has a photo of Delcy Rodríguez and Donald Trump, with a warm two-handed handshake and very friendly smiles.

Do Venezuelans approve of the oil deal? 79.8% do not.

Do Venezuelan approve of Rodríguez and Trump meeting at the UN? 91.4% do not.

Do Venezuelans think Rodríguez truly represents them at the UN? 93.7% do not.

I'm not sure how chavistas exactly fall here. It may well be that they chafe under what's clearly U.S. control over Delcy Rodríguez, which manifests in not believing she's really in charge and representing them. Constitutionally, she actually doesn't represent them because the 180 day requirement of an interim president has long passed. Everyone is just pretending it doesn't matter.

The honeymoon is over but what comes afterward is unknown. Again and again, I just come back to María Corina Machado. Her return is the X factor.

Update 9/23/26: as a matter of fact, the Venezuelan government has been blocking her entry even in the just the last 24 hours and clearly the United States is not standing behind her entry.

Read more...

Repression Continues in Venezuela

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission in Venezuela just released a new report on human rights. The short answer is that the repressive apparatus is still intact, more than eight months after the U.S. invasion. The legal system with all its justifications of attacking citizens is intact. People are still scared and arbitrary arrests are still occurring. Media outlets get closed. People are still in prison for political crimes.

They noticed a new pattern:

A notable new pattern that the mission has identified is the use of short-term arbitrary detention and measures of intimidation against those perceived as opposing the Government, including those who have been subjected previously to long-term arbitrary detention. These carry particular resonance given the context of widespread abuses over the past decade, a potent reminder to political activists that their activities are monitored and that the repressive apparatus remains available to limit freedoms if the authorities decide to do so.

Intimidate people and keep them just a short time, and then they won't get counted as political prisoners. Then there is still torture in prison:

The prevalent methods of torture remain the same as those previously identified by the mission, including punching and beatings with metallic objects; electric shocks, including to the genitals; suffocation with plastic bags; suspension by the hands or the feet for prolonged periods of time; and prolonged confinement in isolation or under other harsh conditions. In addition, the mission identified previously unreported methods of torture, including forced intubation and catheterization.

There is an entire separate paper on colectivos, which is good because they have been central to the government's repressive machinery. 

Tras el despliegue de principios de enero, y lejos de la retórica de resistencia armada que sostuvieron por años, los colectivos optaron por un repliegue relativo. Sin embargo, según la información recibida por la Misión, los grupos han mantenido sus acciones de patrullajes urbanos y labores de inteligencia vecinal en zonas clave, así como el control sobre las economías lícitas e ilícitas. La Misión también documentó nuevos actos de hostigamiento y amenazas perpetrados por colectivos contra familiares de personas privadas de libertad por motivos políticos, incluyendo en las afueras de la prisión de máxima seguridad Rodeo I, en el estado de Miranda en las afueras de El Helicoide y en Plaza Venezuela, ambas en Caracas. 

They make it sound like the colectivos are in a holding pattern, still with a hand in the till to keep them happy and serving in a repressive capacity while trying to keep a low profile. 

The standard now seems to be rumors (and hope!) of things about to happen with way too little change on the ground. The U.S. appears to reaping the economic benefits with enough to the regime that it keeps its cronies happy for the time being.

Read more...

China's Role in Venezuela

Really interesting op-ed by a China expert at the University of Alberta on China's long-term role in Venezuela. Headlines say that China is getting pushed out, just as headlines say (and the administration repeats) that China is getting pushed out elsewhere in Latin America. China's response has been very measured and I think this is on point:

Beijing’s response reflects a calculation that the deal’s fragility will show within months. Venezuela’s production will not surge. The US$100 billion in pledged investment will not materialise while the interim regime’s legitimacy is in question. And China’s existing contracts, protected by international law, remain a legal sword.

China remains Venezuela’s most important Asian oil customer and creditor. Though physical crude flows to China were disrupted this year, Beijing’s more than US$60 billion in oil-for-loan financing since 2007 creates debt obligations that survive the change in field operators – and China’s economic leverage ensures its interests cannot be erased by a 100-year concession granted to a US proxy.

He doesn't get into it, but this leads to three conclusions. The first is that backlash in Venezuela will grow and will worsen when a democratically elected government eventually takes over. The second is that the deal will have no effect on U.S. gas prices or anything else that the average U.S. voter is interested in. The third is that China will continue to have an extensive economic presence in Venezuela.

I don't know how much the average U.S. voter cares about any of this. Increased gas prices are more linked to the Iran war. But Venezuelans care. That's the point I keep thinking about.

Read more...

Venezuela Elections in 2028?

In a press conference, Diosdado Cabello said that elections might occur in 2028 (saying "I think"). Nobody else has put a date on it. And then there's this fun bit:

"We are ready, we have always been ready. Now, those who today want elections, when called to elections, say they are not ready or that they are not going to participate because, deep down, they do not want elections. Deep down they do not respect elections," Cabello stated at a press conference, where he added that the opposition "recognizes when they win," but "when they lose they do not recognize anyone."

Criticizing your political opponents for what you do is all the rage these days. Certainly we commonly see it in the United States. The July 2024 presidential election was quite brazenly stolen.

I think the oil deal is going to increase pressure for elections, evidenced by María Corina Machado's negative response to it as well as growing congressional noise about elections. The Trump administration is doing business with an illegitimate regime and using laughably bad logic to justify it.

I feel like an essential question here is when MCM is going to return. She has talked about it in general terms and there have been rumors about the regime blocking it, not to mention Trump administration admonitions not to do it. But time is ticking away. The oil deal is now a thing, the administration shifted to Dinorah Figuera, and the longer MCM says "soon" without going, the weaker her position is. Returning would be a tremendous act of courage, both in terms of personal safety and Trump's enmity, and the response in Venezuela would be considerable.

Read more...

Can Congress Influence Venezuela Policy?

Both on and off the record, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are expressing doubts about Trump's oil deal with Venezuela. They distrust Delcy Rodríguez (as everyone should). They are concerned that it doesn't focus on elections. They're not happy María Corina Machado is being excluded and in fact she has now publicly expressed that the regime has no right to strike a deal for the Venezuelan people's oil.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is making pretty ludicrous statements in defense:

One U.S. official told NOTUS that the Venezuelan oil deal is “a private deal with a private company. It’s not a deal with the interim government of Venezuela and there was not a political process included in the negotiations.”

“I understand the initial reaction is that we’ve done a deal with the interim government. The deal is not with the interim government; the deal is with a private entity based abroad,” the official said in a statement. “So this in no way impedes a democratic transition, nor does it mean that it cements the interim government as the government.”

As if taking oil from a country has absolutely nothing to do with that country, which somehow has no role to play. I would love to know who the official was.

There is bipartisan agreement on this and it makes me wonder whether that can become leverage to force Trump's hand. There's no way to know Marco Rubio's beliefs but ultimately they aren't decisive anyway. Trump may shift if he feels there is enough opposition that it might start making him look bad. Even Ted Cruz has said there should be elections by mid-2027 (while, like the others, being very careful not to criticize the president). 

Read more...

Cato Institute Says the Venezuela Deal is Socialist

There is a piece in the Cato Institute's blog criticizing the Venezuela deal, in part for reasons I've laid but also because it's socialist.

It expands state corporatism by giving the US government a large, and possibly majority, stake in a major joint oil venture in Venezuela, an entity the Wall Street Journal reports “would be the world’s second-largest corporate holder of proven reserves after Saudi Aramco.” State-owned enterprises are a bad idea anywhere, but as Scott Lincicome observes, this comes after the US government under Trump has already taken equity in 31 private companies. As Scott says, “This isn’t even ‘creeping’ socialism anymore.”

In the meantime, the House of Representatives voted to condemn socialists and Scott Bessent calls socialists "underachievers." The President of the United States, however, wholeheartedly embraces core socialist ideals.

Of course, this version of socialism only entails state ownership, not state redistribution, so it's the worst possible version. At least the Soviets pretended to give back. Given the lack of details and the connection to a clearly corrupt go-between, it adds to the overall vibe of kleptocracy.

There is a lot to be revealed still, but it feels like an alternate version of the "Boliburguesía," the well-connected Venezuelans who got rich off the fruits of state ownership while claiming it was a revolution for the people. I feel confident that a bunch of people are either going to get very wealthy (or get much wealthier because they're already rich) by being tied into this deal.

And remember, imperialism and socialism can go together perfectly well. The Soviets are a perfect example. Imperialism doesn't have to mean capitalism. It just means controlling and plundering for your own benefit. What you do with the spoils afterward isn't part of the definition.

The big question is how much this deal helps Venezuelans. It doesn't seem promising.

Read more...

Venezuela Apparently Loves Dependency

After having periodically looked at Telesur over the years, it is absolutely fascinating to see it become pro-U.S. and basically anti-socialist. Without realizing it, this article about the U.S. oil deal outlines exactly what dependency theory argued was destructive:

Venezuela aportaría acceso a sus recursos energéticos y a su mano de obra cualificada, mientras que Estados Unidos contribuiría con tecnología y capital. El presidente venezolano describió el acuerdo como una combinación de las fortalezas de ambos países.

Venezuela cuenta con una larga trayectoria en la producción petrolera y una fuerza laboral con experiencia en exploración, extracción, refinación y actividades industriales afines. Sin embargo, gran parte del sector requiere modernización de equipos, inversión técnica y mayor financiamiento.

Mientras tanto, Estados Unidos cuenta con importantes compañías energéticas con acceso a tecnologías avanzadas, capital a gran escala y redes de distribución internacionales. Estos recursos podrían utilizarse para mejorar la recuperación de petróleo, reparar la infraestructura y aumentar la fiabilidad de la producción venezolana.

People don't talk much about dependency theory anymore but it is certainly relevant. The United States brings in private industry, capital, technology, and distribution networks. Venezuela provides its oil and some workers.

And the profit? If you look at the history of U.S. domination of natural resources, including in Venezuela, you'll notice that the Latin American country came to realize it was a terrible deal. Money will be flying out of Venezuela with the rationale that it is required to keep technologies updated, buy and repair equipment, etc., etc. That will keep happening until a Venezuelan government says it has to stop. How long that will take is impossible to guess.

Along those lines, note that María Corina Machado just gave a speech calling for elections. She did not mention the deal but it seems clear that she realizes the only kind of government that can push back against the U.S. is a democratically-elected one. There's no way she likes this deal. I haven't seen Dinorah Figuera comment on it, but I don't think anyone can laud it, opposition or Chavista. For Chavistas it's a betrayal of the revolution and for the opposition it's a betrayal of national resources by a government beholden to the United States.

Read more...

Taking Venezuela's Oil

Hugo Chavez in 2008:

Chavez criticized the terms under which Exxon extracted oil in the region and accused the Venezuelan opposition parties of "giving away" the nation's resources when they were in power.

"The oligarchy and the Venezuelan opposition had no shame because they didn't have any problem with giving away the most sacred things. In this case, our oil," he said.

Delcy Rodriguez in 2026:

She thanked Trump and the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, for striking the deal but added: “There is something that must be made absolutely clear: Venezuela retains the ownership and sovereignty over its resources.”

Donald Trump in 2026:

 "This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future," Trump said.

Since details are so sparse about the massive Donald Trump/Marco Rubio-driven oil deal, I don't have any specific commentary on it. Yet regardless of the details, it is hilariously clear that it is exactly what Chavez railed against. Trump clearly sees it as taking Venezuelan oil, with no interest in how it benefits Venezuelans.

At this moment, especially in the aftermarth of the earthquake, Venezuelans may well be willing to swallow it if they feel it injects resources into the economy in a way that materially helps them. In the longer run, and even in the shorter run if no improvements happen, that will almost certainly sour. You can't just take a country's critical natural resource without backlash.

Read more...