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.

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...

Venezuelan Violators of Human Rights

This is a great example of the rhetorical gymnastics required to support Delcy Rodríguez. ICE reports that it deported a former colonel in the Bolivarian National Guard, who was a known violator of human rights. Here's how he is described: "a known human rights violator who participated in the detention and torture of political dissidents during the Maduro regime."

We can all agree that's criminal. But we can also all agree that DR was the vice president of that very same regime. We can, in fact, very accurately refer to it as the Maduro-Rodríguez regime. This dude is the small fry (though big enough). She is the big kahuna, the person who helped order all the tortures. But somehow now she's not part of the "Maduro regime."

Which leads me to the next point. OK, you removed him from the United States, but since he's going back to the regime that hired him it's not like you're punishing him beyond the fact that Venezuela is in shambles. I guess Marco Rubio could tell DR to put him in jail but that would logically mean putting lots of other people, including herself, in jail too.

Read more...

Is Delcy Rodriguez President, Acting President, or Neither?

One of the many weird things about current Venezuelan politics is that according to the Venezuelan constitution, Delcy Rodríguez is not the president. There is no legal president. A presidential vacancy must be filled within 180 days, which was on July 3.

Artículo 234. Las faltas temporales del Presidente o Presidenta de la República serán suplidas por el Vicepresidente Ejecutivo o Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva hasta por noventa días, prorrogables por decisión de la Asamblea Nacional por noventa días más.

Si una falta temporal se prolonga por más de noventa días consecutivos, la Asamblea Nacional decidirá por mayoría de sus integrantes si debe considerarse que hay falta absoluta.

The National Assembly hasn't done anything and obviously there have been no elections. So she's not legally the president. But then I saw a news story that called something to my attention. Official government references (like this one) have dropped the "acting" and just refer to her as president, which is not legally true.

Many people--me certainly--have been in organizations where the bylaws fall behind practice, but we're talking about a country, where the stakes are extraordinarily high. Falling out of constitutionally rips up the social contract and is dictatorship. It leads to real and severe problems.

Read more...

Another Report on Cuba

The America First Policy Institute published a report on Cuba. I think it's actually a lot better than the State Department's report from last month. But I was mostly curious about the policy implications and what the report demonstrates is that the U.S. just has no options that it hasn't tried before.

Of the 12 policy recommendations, 6 of them say the U.S. should demand something of Cuba that we've demanded before and they've continued to ignore. "Break the Communist Party's Grip on Cuba" has been a priority since the 1960s. There's nothing new in the report telling us how it would happen now. There is quite a lot of demanding and requiring but how? 

Another is to increase economic pressure. It's unclear to me how this can be increased--the U.S. has been squeezing Cuba since the 1960s and the Trump administration has ratcheted it up even more. Increases have never worked before and no one can possibly know whether immiserating the Cuban people more will suddenly be different.

One of the interesting ones is to restore Radio Martí and TV Martí, which the administration dismantled. "The Trump Administration was right to target waste and inefficiency in these programs, but their underlying mission remains important." It never made sense to me why they were targeted since the main criticism they had received was that they were too conservative. 

The last recommendation is to "Keep Every Lawful Instrument of American Power on the Table." This is interesting for two reasons. The first is that it's really been true since 1959. The U.S. has used every action imaginable though obviously after the Bay of Pigs, invasion was not viewed favorably. Not even Trump seems to view it favorably. But the second is why the report uses the word "lawful." In a sense it may reflect how often illegal means have been used and how terribly ineffective they've been (there are tons of declassified documents on this).

To be fair, what other recommendations can there even be, legal or not? Cuba isn't Venezuela so I don't get the impression that the U.S. has found enough willing partners inside Cuba to do a snatch-and-grab. The U.S. has tried invasion, assassination, economic sanctions and deprivation, political isolation, denunciation, punishment of countries that do business with Cuba, covert harassment, intelligence gathering, immigration policy, individual sanctions, and everything else under the sun. At various times the U.S. has also tried to soften some of those policies as a carrot. I just don't know what's left.

Read more...

CRS Report on Venezuela

The Congressional Research Service published a new report on Venezuela, "Venezuela's Post-Maduro Transition and U.S. Policy." As always it's a great resource for a non-partisan summary of what's going on and even what bills are currently under deliberation (there are at least six right now) and what else could be done.

Because it's rooted in Congress, it gives suggestions that would assert congressional influence, which at the moment seems quite unlikely. The most unlikely of all is to "urge or require the Administration to consult with the EU and Canada when making decisions on targeted sanctions." Since the President of the United States insults the EU and Canada on a regular basis and constantly talks about America First, it's hard to imagine Republicans allowing anything like that forward.

The Senate did recently pass a resolution that I thought was quite good, but I am not seeing signs that Congress wants to play a major role in Venezuela policy aside from getting administration officials to testify and face questions. Since Trump is set on a particular course, congressional activism would have to require Republicans questioning his choices. I'm not sure there is stomach for that. I would hope so, like I would for any major policy, because the more questioning involved, the better. Foreign policy is rarely going as well as presidents like to claim.

Read more...

State Department Video on the Monroe Doctrine

A book that's been always interesting for me over many years is Samuel Flagg Bemis' The Latin American Policy of the United States: An Historical Interpretation, published in 1943. As I contemplated writing my own textbook, I found a used copy and was fascinated by its perspective.

It's a great window into an era where professors had no doubts about how U.S. policy served to civilize others and spread our aura. The U.S. wielded power when it needed to in order to guide Latin American nations toward their own destinies. Introspection or a critical approach is nowhere to be found. Indeed, Bemis uses the word "imperialism" in an entirely positive way. The administration of Theodore Roosevely, he writes, "ushered in a new era in the Latin American policy of the United States, an era of protective imperialism" (p. 140). Even if you might allow a little bit of criticism for U.S. intervention in Nicaragua in the early 20th century, "that intervention was an honest intent, at least, to stabilize and strength the international relations of Central America" (p. 165).

Bemis had no way of knowing at the time that U.S. control of Cuba and Nicaragua would end up disastrous, fostering violent civil wars that eventually led to dictatorships that still exist and bedevil the U.S. in 2026. U.S. policy toward the two countries has been a failure in virtually every respect. What the U.S. sees as protective imperialism is viewed as noxious control within the country itself.

Which brings us to the video the State Department recently posted, narrated by Kevin Marino Cabrera, U.S. Ambassador to Panama. It is a celebration of the Monroe Doctrine that could've been written by Bemis but, unlike in 1943, we know that much of the outcomes were terrible for the U.S. Somehow occupation of Cuba was great but so was getting missiles out of Cuba, not understanding that the first led to the second. Daniel Ortega is powerful now because he led a group of Nicaraguans fighting a dictatorship the U.S. had installed decades ago.

We know this, it's not obscure history, and pretending it didn't happen will inevitably lead to other foreign policy disasters.

Read more...

Continued Repression in Venezuela

Foro Penal reports that the number of political prisoners in Venezuela increased from 379 to 382 from July 27 to August 3. That's bad enough, but there are also over 11,000 people whose liberty is restricted in some way even if they're not in prison. That's the liminal space that so many Venezuelans find themselves in, harassed and threatened by security forces.

It's very telling that the Trump administration never talks about political prisoners. It boasts about controlling the country but not about allowing the abuses that the regime still commits daily. The administration talks a lot about reconciliation and you cannot have that with people being attacked for their political views. Reconciliation has to include acceptance of alternate views.

Remember the short-lived amnesty? There has been precious little discussion about why it dissolved. I'm not even sure we have an accurate count of how many people it affected. Not nearly enough, clearly.

Read more...