More Cracks in Venezuela

Venezuelans have been souring on the situation they're in. And now more prominent people who are close to the regime are also complaining. Whatever you think of their politics, their arguments are entirely accurate. Delcy Rodríguez has handed Venezuela's wealth to the United States and people's lives are not getting better. Her approval ratings are sliding.

The question that comes to my mind is whether there is an anti-Delcy Chavista who decides to step forward as a challenger. That's unanswerable at the moment. Tied to that is the military's loyalty, which I assume is being bought but is also unknown.

The only way an unpopular dictator supported by the United States can stay in power is to repress its own citizens. That has happened plenty of times. The difference now is that Trump pays lip service to democracy, so how much repression would he accept for his favored leader to stay in power if protests start and things get dicey?

There are so many unknowns but we know one thing for sure: Venezuela is not a stable country. As people get more unhappy and the Chavista criticisms mount, they may well go to the streets in larger numbers and with more intent on political change. And they will not be on the same page--some will want Maráa Corina Machado and some will hate her. Not a great combination.

Read more...

Trump's Venezuela Honeymoon is Collapsing

I hope no one is surprised at this, but Donald Trump's honeymoon in Venezuela is collapsing. In February his approval was 82.9%, which slide to 74.% in March and then 47% in April. The explanation is very simple. Venezuelans overwhelmingly wanted Nicolás Maduro out but there is broad expectation of democratization, which isn't happening, and economic benefits, which also aren't happening. Venezuela remains a dictatorship with an economy in tatters.

To the extent he thinks about it at all, I would guess Trump figures that rejuvenating the oil industry will spread wealth around. But of course there is not reason to assume that when the government is so corrupt. But he praises Rodríguez while the Venezuelan people want--and deserve!--to choose their own leaders. Maduro lost the last election so her rule is entirely illegitimate.

Nationalism will emerge at some point, though I can't hazard a guess as to when. People are benefiting from Venezuelan oil and it's not the vast majority of Venezuelans. The leader of the opposition and the true winner of the last presidential election is not back in the country. A lot has changed but too much has stayed the same.

Read more...

Marco Rubio on Cuba

From a Fox News interview with Marco Rubio:

But in order for it to get better, they do need very substantial and serious economic reforms.  Those serious economic reforms are impossible with these people in charge.  It can’t happen.  And these people in charge aren’t just economically incompetent.  They have rolled out the welcome mat to adversaries of the United States to operate within Cuban territory against our national interest with impunity.  We are not going to have a foreign military or intelligence or security apparatus operating with impunity 90 miles off the shores of the United States.  That’s not going to happen under President Trump. 

There are two major problems here.

First, who are "these people in charge"? One would reasonably argue that it meant all the current decision-makers. But that is very much not the model Trump followed in Venezuela, where there is actually a functional opposition that can run a government. No such thing exists in Cuba. If "these people" refer narrowly to Miguel Díaz-Canel and maybe some of his closer advisors, well then fine. The same people (e.g. the military) would still be running the country but maybe the U.S. could claim it had cleaned house.

Second, China and Russia operating in Cuba is and has been happening under Trump, so it's not true that it's not going to happen when he's president. That may be nitpicky for what's just intended as a threat, but still.

Read more...

What If Maria Corina Machado Returned to Venezuela?

A Venezuelan researcher concisely and accurately sums up the core dilemma in Venezuela: "The greatest risk, then, is not simply the absence of a transition. It is the simulation of one." In other words, Delcy Rodríguez mimics democratization without actually ceding any power or allowing greater opposition participation in government, not to mention maintaining some level of repression.

Unfortunately, the main proposed solution was to look to the U.S. to force benchmarks. I don't think it's particularly useful to posit solutions that Donald Trump obviously won't implement.

So what changes this slow reconsolidation of authoritarianism? What I wonder is what happens if María Corina Machado returns to Venezuela. There is much we don't know, particularly in terms of what the Trump administration has been telling her. It's reasonable to hypothesize, however, that at some point she'll decide that being friends with Trump isn't accomplishing anything for her country.

From what I gather, which was reaffirmed in the panel on Venezuela I was recently on, is that Venezuelans are hesitant and uncertain. There might've been a spark of excitement a few months ago but that's died down. MCM's return would be a huge deal and she would attract crowds.

For her personally, it would be a dangerous game of two-way chicken, and when I say dangerous I mean very potentially for her own life, so this would be no easy decision. Here are the two angles:

1. Implicitly challenging Delcy to detain her, which would be a PR disaster for the regime and I'm not sure even Trump could ignore it, which is why he doesn't want MCM going there at all.

2. Implicitly (or maybe even explicitly) trying to get Trump's support for much earlier elections, which he doesn't want. And challenging Trump is risky because he takes everything personally. Plus, all he wants out of Venezuela is oil without a headache. This is a headache.

In general, her return would shake things up.

Read more...

How Popular Can the Venezuelan Right Be?

Something that hasn't exactly been ignored but really deserves more attention is how well María Corina Machado and the opposition generally connect with Venezuelans. At her rally in Madrid, a Venezuelan singer joined in chants of "get the monkey out" in reference to Delcy Rodríguez. Remember that Hugo Chávez was also routinely called a monkey by the right.

Poverty and class divisions propelled Chávez to power in the first place and it's not clear that the right has ever thought much about its own role. Compare that to Chile, where the Socialist Party transformed itself as it underwent painful reflection over its role in the country's polarization in the early 1970s. Once democracy returned, the Socialists were most likely to engage in discussions with the right.

Edmundo González/MCM clearly won the 2024 presidential election but one could reasonably argue that many (most?) were against. Against Maduro, against dictatorship, against economic deprivation. The right has mostly positioned itself as the anti-Maduro and in a democratic transition that will not cut it for very long. If the right is still widely viewed as racist elites, that's not a recipe for electoral success. It probably is enough to win an initial election because the regime is so discredited, but it will face intense scrutiny and even public demonstrations if results don't come quickly enough.

As long as the U.S. keeps Delcy Rodríguez in power, even in violation of the constitution, the less pressure there is on the right to develop a detailed platform, beyond just opening up markets and rebuilding institutions. That's a shame.

Read more...

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...