Latin Americans See China as a Good Partner

A new region-wide poll and report have some very interesting insights. This is from the German Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Foundation, the magazine Nueva Sociedad, and the Diálogo y Paz group, authored by some well-known Latin American scholars. A major takeaway is how positively Latin Americans view China.

So, for example, Latin Americans consider China a better partner than the United States for protection of the environment, culture and education, commerce and infrastructure (by a lot!), digital technology (by an even more lot), and even combating poverty. And here's a fun one: Latin Americans trust Donald Trump far less than Nicolás Maduro.

I'll keep banging this drum. The Maduro kidnapping and the bombing of boats is headline-grabbing hard power but there is no much below the surface that is not making headlines in the U.S. This is even true of presidents (Javier Milei is a major example) that publicly are very pro-Trump.

For every attack and every tariff threat, there is a reaction. Under Trump the U.S. is not a reliable partner. Even if you have a trade deal he might suddenly ignore it. The administration has long given up caring about soft power and China is right there, regardless of all the threats. And Latin Americans know it.

Read more...

What Venezuela Needs

I am constantly checking to see if there is any new political news from Venezuela and the answer is typically no. What I am seeing instead is a steady stream of commentary about what Venezuela needs.

I don't generally read these because I want to know what's actually happening, not what people (especially non-Venezuelans) want to happen. From what I gather, here is what's actually happening:

1. The U.S. is sucking oil and resources out of the country.

2. Delcy Rodríguez is engaging in purges and otherwise consolidating her rule.

3. Trump is perfectly happy with Delcy as long as he can keep sucking oil and resources.

4. Delcy's rule is becoming shaky in constitutional terms but I don't know who would enforce it.

5. María Corina Machado is talking a lot about returning but appears to be waiting for Trump's green light.

6. Repression continues but whether it has softened is unknown (at least from here).

None of this is particularly new, which is the troubling part. Nothing going on is conducive to making Venezuelans' lives better and certainly not for democracy. What I wonder and certainly do not know is when the Venezuelan people will start protesting in large numbers. Otherwise I don't know if Delcy feels any pressure to liberalize, much less democratize.

Read more...

Reminder: Venezuela's Democracy Isn't Trump's Goal

Former Ambassador to Venezuela James Story has an op-ed where he laments that the Trump administration might be losing leverage to force political liberalization. Perhaps because it is impolitic he does not address the elephant in the room, which is that Trump doesn't care about liberalization, much less democracy.

The message to Chavista elites, long conditioned to see sanctions as the price of authoritarian behavior, is that change in personalities, not in institutions, may suffice to regain international legitimacy. That is a dangerous precedent in a system where the legislature remains dominated by loyalists, the courts are deeply politicized and the security services have never been held to account. 

This is not a "dangerous precedent" when you don't care. If oil flows to the U.S. then you're all good. Further:

It signals that international legitimacy no longer hinges on competitive elections or institutional pluralism.

Correct! And it all just makes more sense when you realize that this is totally fine for Trump. Come on, he's been actively supporting Victor Orbán (who just lost!). Story asks what the Venezuelan people should think of all this and the answer is simple: Trump hears that they loved his actions to remove Maduro and that's all he cares about. 

In short, Trump wants (and has) leverage over oil. Whether or not he loses leverage over liberalization is something I guarantee has never entered his mind. He never thinks about it because he has exactly zero interest in it.

Read more...

Throwback U.S. Policy on Terrorism

A hallmark of U.S. Cold War policy in Latin America was to label virtually any reformer as a Communist and therefore as a terrorist or tool of Moscow. And now we're back.

The United States was as concerned as always about Islamist terrorism, said the official, Monica A. Jacobsen, according to a copy of her prepared remarks reviewed by The New York Times and three officials briefed on the meeting. But, she told her counterparts from Europe, Canada and Australia, the Trump administration also wanted more attention on what it believed was an insidious, underestimated threat: the far left.

Western governments must combat “antifa and far-left terrorism,” Ms. Jacobsen’s prepared remarks asserted, casting the effort as an evolution in counterterrorism following the “global war on terror.” Her prepared speech defined far-left terrorism to include threats from communists, Marxists, anarchists, anticapitalists and those with “eco-extremist” and “other self-identified antifascist ideologies.”

Now, as then, all this means is that you can target your political opponents by labeling them in a particular way. "Antifa," of course, isn't even an organization, and far left terrorism is far rarer today in Latin America and elsewhere than it was during the Cold War. It reflects mindlessly casting around for scapegoats.

In Cold War Latin America, it led to widespread murder, torture, and misery. Those are the only possible outcomes. The good news is that this appears not be getting much traction except from the far right. 

Read more...

Who the Venezuelan Amnesty Doesn't Cover

Delcy Rodríguez says she is putting together a group of religious leaders to help oversee the amnesty process. The problem is that the government claims differ from NGOs:

La brecha entre las cifras oficiales y las verificadas independientemente es sustancial. Mientras el diputado Jorge Arreaza, presidente de la comisión parlamentaria de seguimiento, informó que al 26 de marzo 8.416 personas obtuvieron “libertad plena”, Foro Penal contabilizaba al 30 de ese mes 490 presos políticos aún recluidos: 303 civiles y 187 militares. La diferencia metodológica es determinante: el gobierno incluye en sus totales a personas con medidas cautelares no privativas de libertad, mientras la organización solo registra excarcelaciones efectivas de quienes estaban físicamente en prisión. Foro Penal advirtió además que la ley aplica en la práctica solo a 13 de los 27 años que dice abarcar.

But there remains the bigger question of who the amnesty doesn't cover, namely the thousands of Venezuelans who have been harassed, attacked, detained, and the like without any criminal charges. Their names are in databases and there is no sign that they are being erased.

That's beyond the purview of the religious leaders, who are tasked with the amnesty, not the amnesty's forthcomings. But all those people are living in fear or in many cases have fled the country. If a colectivo comes after you on a motorcycle, grabbing your phone, threatening, or maybe even shooting, then you leave the country even when there are no formal charges. And those folks can't find relief in the amnesty. 

Read more...

New Paradigm Shift in US Policy Toward Latin America?

Carlos Pared Vidal has a piece out in Global Americans about the new paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy:

First, public signaling: a disciplined communications posture that frames the stakes, clarifies red lines, and compresses negotiating timelines. Second, economic leverage: sanctions, tariff tools, and related measures that expand the perimeter of bargaining. Third, targeted military action: limited in scope, often technology-intensive, and designed for outsized strategic effect.

I agree with the basic pattern but there is one problem*. Communications are very definitely not disciplined. At all. One key problem with both Iran and Venezuela is that neither country took Donald Trump's threats seriously because he so often threatens without doing anything. His communication consists of social media posts with lots of caps and exclamation points.

So the trick here is to figure out when he's actually serious, which is impossible. Trump viciously criticized Colombian President Gustavo Petro, then later said he was great even though nothing had really changed. He's done with same with Lula. Often his communications are vague and therefore not clear about what he actually wants.

Perhaps as the number of wars he launches increase, leaders will assume he means what he says, but I am not sure we're quite there yet.

* Given the Iran morass, I am not so sure the military action is limited in scope. Perhaps just because the U.S. has not (yet) committed ground troops. But that's not my focus in this post.

Read more...

Democratic Transition Timing in Venezuela

This is Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Fox News:

Q. You met earlier today with the Venezuelan opposition leader, María Corina Machado.  Right now, Delcy Rodríguez seems to have been working well with the U.S.

A. Ultimately, there will have to be a transition phase.  There will have to be free and fair elections in Venezuela, and that point has to come.  And that has to – it’s not forever, but we have to be patient, but we also can’t be complacent.  And so I feel very good about the progress we’ve made in Venezuela in three months. 

He chose both not to discuss the specific people and to remain vague on timing. Vagueness has been a hallmark of the transition plan. But avoiding mention of MCM is interesting because at the same time the administration just lifted sanctions on Delcy Rodríguez, who Trump is clearly very satisfied with. The 2018 sanctions noted the following:

“President Maduro relies on his inner circle to maintain his grip on power, as his regime systematically plunders what remains of Venezuela’s wealth. We are continuing to designate loyalists who enable Maduro to solidify his hold on the military and the government while the Venezuelan people suffer,” said Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin.  “Treasury will continue to impose a financial toll on those responsible for Venezuela’s tragic decline, and the networks and front-men they use to mask their illicit wealth.” 

Delcy Rodríguez still has a hold on the military and the government and the Venezuelan people still suffer. Clearly that isn't the point for the Trump administration. The point is the oil. Elsewhere in the interview:

The second is a phase of recovery.  And that’s what we’re in – the recovery phase – right now, where you’re seeing not just economical recovery going on in Venezuela, but you’re also seeing an economic recovery in a way that’s good for the United States.  I mean, they are shipping all of that oil to our refineries, and that money is being – the profits from that is being deposited into bank accounts controlled by the United States Treasury, and the money is going to the benefit of the Venezuelan people, not being stolen.

What I love is that in the same sentence Rubio says the profits from Venezuelan oil are going into U.S. bank accounts and that now they're not being stolen. 

 

Read more...

What is Regime Change Anyway?

Donald Trump says regime change in Iran is complete. 

Though Iran’s clerical and military establishment remain in control of the country, and its most hard-line factions may even have emerged strengthened, Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: “We’ve had regime change.”

“The one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead. The next regime is mostly dead,” he said. He suggested that Iran had moved onto its “third regime,” and that American negotiators were speaking to “a whole different group of people,” who have “been very reasonable.”

We don't actually know what negotiations are going on, but that's not the point. Trump sees regime change in terms of individuals. That's not the way it's typically been used, though it's a slippery context. Here's a more common way of thinking about it:

A regime, then, may be characterized as that part of the political system which determines how and under what conditions and limitations the power of the state is exercised. In other words, the concept of regime is concerned with the form of rule.

This can be related to the individual(s) in power but it's more of an overall way of conceiving how state power should used. You can have changes of government but not regime change, even though each ruler may not wield power in exactly the same way (maybe think of Fidel and Raúl Castro). In Venezuela I don't think we can say regime change happened because as of now the state wields power in very similar ways and there is no move toward elections, which would drastically change how power is used. Venezuela is in a really weird liminal space, though.

Coming back to Trump, he views regime change in terms of finding a leader who will work with him to do what he wants on a limited number of very specific issues, especially oil, in a way that clearly erodes sovereignty. The entire structure of the government doesn't need to change. He doesn't care.

Perhaps the bottom line is whether we should say regime change is happening if the average person sees little change in how they relate to the state. The U.S. may reap tremendous benefits in looted oil, but Venezuelans aren't sure what's coming next or whether they're free to speak out.

Read more...

Venal Leadership in Cuba and Venezuela

I am at the Southeastern Council of Latin American Studies conference. Yesterday Renata Keller presented a paper based on her book on the regional response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I've been finishing up the excellent podcast series on the crisis (which she also co-leads). The stark difference between that era and now has really struck me.

At that time, and in Venezuela, say, 20-25 years ago, the leadership was popular and committed to a particular political and economic project. Ultimately that's why the Bay of Pigs failed as did the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

What we have now are Cuban and Venezuelan leaders totally open to negotiation about ceding sovereignty because in fact they believe in nothing beyond self-preservation and access to power. Now we hear about the Castro family negotiating like a royal family, which they clearly view themselves as, while the Rodriguez's do the same in Venezuela.

Meanwhile, they negotiate with a U.S. president with no interest in democracy, which is precisely what gives them incentive to talk in the first place. I think the Venezuelan example gives them hope that they can sacrifice Miguel Diaz-Canel, who doesn't mean anything to anyone, hold onto power, and avoid consequences.

I just think any discussion of U.S. actions towards these countries needs to grapple with the venality of their leaders.

Read more...

Will Russia Do Anything For Cuba?

I had not thought all that much about what Russia would do if the U.S. attacked Venezuela and/or Cuba. I have countless posts about how Russian and Iranian influence was far lower than alarmists wished to portray. That said, the Russia-Cuba relationship is very old and deep, so I might have expected more than zero. But with Venezuela, it was zero.

And for Cuba it has been pretty much zero up to this point. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement about Cuba and it is pretty vague:

"There has been a deliberate effort to ratchet up the atmosphere of confrontation," the ministry said in a statement on its website.

"Against this backdrop, Russia reaffirms its unwavering solidarity with the Cuban Government and its brotherly people. We firmly condemn attempts to grossly interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, intimidate it and engage illegal unilateral restrictive measures," it said.

It noted that Cuba today faces unprecedented challenges created by the long-standing trade, economic and financial embargoes imposed by the United States. "For our part, we are providing and will continue to provide Cuba with the necessary support, including material assistance," it said.

The main material assistance is needs now is oil and a commitment to defending Cuba militarily. The latter has not happened and I can't imagine it happening for a variety of reasons. Oil is more doable but hasn't happened yet. There appears to be a Russian oil tanker on its way but we'll have to see what happens. The rubber hits the road when the U.S. and Russia face off directly.

Cuba just doesn't have allies willing to deal with the U.S. A big part of it is that the revolution is long dead. It's very similar to Venezuela in that ideals were once real and now are just pantomime. It's all just clinging to power at this point. Cuba was once widely admired in Latin America but that's a long time ago. Miguel Díaz-Canel is an uninteresting bureaucrat who does not generate even a modicum of admiration anywhere. Who would want to risk U.S. retaliation for that?

Read more...

CHina Supplants Midwest Farmers

Keep looking beyond the big headlines to see what happens with China in Latin America. One such example is that farmers in the midwest are concerned by how China has shifted away from buying U.S. soybeans and instead is buying even more from Latin America, where it now has long-standing relationships and infrastructure.

And the farmers know why. It's not complicated Here is a quote from one:

For her, the changing politics and policies have made the United States an “unreliable trading partner.”

“The only way that we become their top choice would be if our soybeans were far cheaper than South America’s.”

China has been strategically investing in infrastructure, especially after 2018 when the Trump administration's trade war policy heated up. The U.S. slaps tariffs on China, which reciprocates. The reciprocation means that U.S. farmers get shut out because Brazil doesn't impose such tariffs. It's how global capitalism works. You can't count on unreliable trading paretners so you do your best to work around them.

What this does, of course, is to cement exactly what the Trump administration claims it doesn't want, which is increased Chinese investment and involvement in Latin America.

Watch for more of this all the time. It's been ongoing.

Read more...

Human Rights Still Abused in Venezuela

 A UN fact finding mission went to Venezuela and one of its members discussed ongoing human rights abuses for the period going back to September 2025.

First of all, she noted the very obvious holes in the amnesty law:

It applies only to criminal offences (and not to civil, disciplinary, administrative or other types of proceedings) and only to a closed list of events. It excludes a large number of individuals detained in relation to other incidents, including alleged “armed or forceful actions” against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country—an accusation frequently used by authorities to detain military personnel, ex-military members and civilians.

Further, people are still being detained. I had been wondering about the colectivos, which are specifically mentioned:

Information available to the Mission confirms that “colectivos”—armed civilian groups— continue to operate. Civic and democratic space remains severely restricted. Civil society organizations, the few remaining independent media outlets, and political actors continue to face attacks, harassment or intimidation. The prospects for full guarantees necessary for free and democratic elections remain remote.

It notes that all of the laws used to repress people remain on the books. The fact is that while there appears to be a lot of cautious optimism, the entire repressive apparatus and the people who run them remain exactly as they were before the invasion. There are a million ways this could go, but elections are the clearest way to repeal all of that.

Read more...

Cartel Proclamation

Donald Trump issued a proclamation in conjunction with his Shield of the Americas initiative.

(1)  Criminal cartels and foreign terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere should be demolished to the fullest extent possible consistent with applicable law.

There is nothing new here, except maybe the use of the word "demolish" to be dramatic.

(2)  The United States and its allies should coordinate to deprive these organizations of any control of territory and access to financing or resources necessary to conduct their campaigns of violence.

This is already a goal, even with countries not part of the initiative. If there is enhanced regional coordination that would be great.

(3)  The United States will train and mobilize partner nation militaries to achieve the most effective fighting force necessary to dismantle cartels and their ability to export violence and pursue influence through organized intimidation.

In general this is not new. How it gets carried out may well be. More coordination isn't necessarily a bad thing, though I don't know if that's what they have in mind (to be fair, they may well not know what they have in mind). But you can't help but think about Operation Condor kind of stuff.

The biggest problem here is that this is pure military, in a way that echoes the worst parts of the Cold War. No mention of civilian authorities, democracy, governance, etc. So what will the training consist of? If it means blowing up boats, it can get dicey. In any event, blowing up boats doesn't do anything to dismantle cartels or reduce violence.

There are longstanding debates about the role of the military in Latin America, which I've been part of and don't need to rehash here. Suffice it to say that military autonomy when it comes to using force is problematic. But I also know the administration doesn't see it as a problem.

(4)  The United States and its allies should keep external threats at bay, including malign foreign influences from outside the Western Hemisphere.

This is straight-up Cold War, so what's old is new again. Obviously this is aimed at China, though secondarily to Iran and its allies, which are an age-old boogeyman for the U.S. right. The difference with the Cold War is that China has been deeply involved in Latin America for almost 30 years, which was certainly not the case with the Soviet Union.

And I'll say, over and over, that if the U.S. wants to keep China at bay it needs to offer itself as an alternative, which is in conflict with an "America-first" attitude.

Read more...

The Venezuelan Opposition and Presidential Election

When the U.S. announced its re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Venezuela, it included mention of a "phased process" toward "a peaceful transition to a democratically elected government." Meanwhile, there is an opinion piece at Caracas Chronicles that calls for a primary to determine a single opposition candidate.

The twist is that María Corina Machado is clearly the opposition leader with the most political momentum (though she is now out of the limelight) but Trump consciously sidelined her and brought Enrique Márquez, another opposition leader who also ran in the 2024 election and was an opposition member of the CNE for several years, to the State of the Union. That gives us two high visibility candidates, which is exactly what Delcy Rodríguez would want and the regime wanted for many years before that--opposition division. So a single candidate makes sense if they can agree to it.

But there is also the question of what their platform will be. People will want to know what the opposition will do better and be reassured that the social services they have won't be removed. The country is already selling oil to the U.S. and Delcy talks very nicely about Donald Trump so you can't promise better relations. You can't really promise trials or accountability. You can talk about free market capitalism but you'll want to be very careful with that.

Delcy Rodríguez did a verbal 180, or close to it, so it's hard to be her opposite, whereas just in December it would've been easy. So it gets easier for people to choose her and avoid the unknown.

Read more...