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...

Venezuelans Are Unhappy With Delcy and Trump

Venezuelan firm Meganalisis has a poll from after the earthquakes. It shows truly overwhelming disgust with Delcy Rodríguez regime, from her to government agencies. Some examples:

--93% say the information they get from the regime is either little or very little

--94% say they can't believe official information they get from it

--95% say they feel indignation after the earthquakes

--92% say the regime's response was bad or very bad

--96% say the regime could've done more

--78% feel deceived by the support Trump gives the regime

And the last one asks whether they believe Trump wants what's best for Venezuelans.

Look at the bottom part. Trump's positive image has dropped 70.7% since the invasion. He talks about how happy Venezuelans are with him but that's extremely outdated and is no longer true. Most people are still puzzled and trying to understand how the U.S. continues to support the dictatorship, perhaps waiting to see how negotiations go. The honeymoon is ending.

Read more...

Senate Resolution on Venezuela

The Senate introduced a bipartisan resolution on Venezuela calling for elections. Ted Cruz and Tim Kaine are both on it. It is spot on. It calls for:

1. The "interim authorities" (definitely not using "government" though also not "regime") to immediately call for elections

2. Release of all political prisoners

3. Condemns any effort to go after people seeking public office, naming María Corina Machado

Currently, neither the Trump administration nor the Venezuelan regime want elections. Marco Rubio gets cagy about it when asked, saying it will take many months and citing Paraguay of all places. Therefore the U.S. Congress has an opportunity to push them publicly. The Venezuelan people clearly want democratic elections.

Rubio also had this nugget:

"They're not inheriting a disaster. They're not inheriting a reconstruction process. They're inheriting a functional state," he said, adding that the direction of the transition was positive even if the pace was not.

It's not a disaster? Yeah, it's a disaster that involves significant reconstruction. Sure, it's not Haiti, but that's a low bar. 

What I also like about the resolution is that it doesn't mention the earthquake, which is becoming an excuse. Building a credible electoral authority is going to be a challenge, and even more so given the infrastructure that's been destroyed, but it's doable.

Read more...

Via Caracas Chronicles, Jorge Rodríguez and Dinorah Figuera say they had a phone call to start their dialogue. This was all through X.

There are three key points:

1. Dealing with the double earthquake

2. Strengthening democracy

3. Rights and political guarantees

It's not clear whether these get dealt with at one time or in order. In-person talks begin next week in Caracas.

Since Venezuela is not a democracy, it's actually a matter of starting it rather than strengthening it, but whatever. Note that there is no mention of an election. Figuera says the point of the dialogue is political transition, whereas Rodríguez emphasizes the earthquake. The last thing the regime wants is elections so it'll draw out the earthquake as long as possible.

Fortunately, the State Department's statement does mention elections, though not as part of this dialogue:

The U.S. welcomes the August 1 statements from Venezuela’s 2015 National Assembly, led by Dinorah Figuera, and the interim government.

We support the launching of Venezuelan‑led efforts to address the urgent needs of those affected by the June 24 earthquakes, strengthen democratic institutions, expand political freedoms, and advance a more stable and prosperous future for the Venezuelan people. This process contributes significantly to the three phase plan the United States supports to bring about stabilization, economic recovery and political reconciliation and a transition to democratic elections.

We are confident this work can deliver tangible results for Venezuelans.

Will this dialogue generate a timetable for elections? No way to know at this point but that's what really matters. Without elections you can't get most of the things the State Department says it wants--democratic institutions, political freedoms, stability, reconciliation, etc. 

Read more...

Venezuela: Free Elections Before Reconciliation

Marco Rubio recently gave an interview on Fox News. There's variety of stuff in there (the Cuba report, for example) but one thing in particilar caught my attention about Venezuela:

Ultimately, you have to have transition.  At some point in time there has to be legitimate elections at every level so that people know that the government that’s there is a legitimate government chosen by their people.  Step one towards that is a national reconciliation.  This is a people that have been divided politically for a very long time against each other, and you’re going to have to look at models like what you saw happen in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.  I think the role the U.S. Government can continue to play is as a facilitator of all of this. 

Comparing Venezuela to Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union is the wrong approach. Those were actual nations that were becoming states again.

We should compare Venezuela to other past Latin American countries that underwent political transition. There is no perfect examples because Venezuela's path (invasion and retention of dictatorship) has no twin. It could become a weird category of negotiation with the U.S. more on the side of the dictatorship. But Rubio is talking about reconciliation so we don't need a perfect transition path--we just need to look at politically divided countries.

And the problem we then find is that reconciliation cannot happen under authoritarian rule. It happens after free elections. There might be parameters (e.g. an amnesty) that constrain what elected leaders can do, but only freely acting people can move toward bridging gaps. Right now, many Venezuelans are afraid to speak openly.

The great thing about democracy is that you have to reach out beyond your supporters. You have to show why you're not just a return to what plenty of people thought was a failed political system. The Chilean Christian Democrats successfully did that. So you need elections. But somehow they somehow always come at the end of the list of U.S. priorities.

 

Read more...