María Corina Machado Returns

María Corina Machado returned to Venezuela, which is huge. No one can say how this will affect the political situation, which of course will be dictated by her actions. Clearly Marco Rubio expects her to toe the line.

In the weeks since, the process of political dialogue in Venezuela has gained momentum, the U.S. officials said. That has given the administration some confidence that the authoritarian government would not arrest Ms. Machado if she returned, they said.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Rubio expect Ms. Machado to respect and support the ongoing process of political dialogue as well as economic plans for Venezuela, one of the administration officials said.

She needs to support both the political negotiations she was intentionally excluded from and the business deals that she in fact has already questioned because the regime does not represent the interests of the Venezuelan people. So can she keep quiet about them? How does this directly challenge the authority of Dinorah Figuera in her capacity as opposition negotiator?

As an aside, I am struck by the Trump administration's claim that it needed to wait for confidence that she wouldn't be arrested. One could reasonably argue that if Rubio told them not to arrest her, then they wouldn't. But was there perhaps a whiff of doubt, a concern that they might arrest her anyway and call the administration's bluff?

Her return will change internal dynamics but no one can predict how. She's going to press for elections, fair business deals, and the like. She cultivates Trump but is not beholden to him. So let's see. But it's good she's back--Venezuela needs to become a democracy that's safe for everyone to return to.

Read more...

Venezuela: Going Full Circle

Billionares seem to be talking about Venezuela. Richard Branson says investment will flow in once there are elections. On the one hand, it's good in the sense that it can create more pressure to have free elections. That was certainly a factor in the U.S. starting to pressure Augusto Pinochet in the mid-late 1980s.

On the other, it's a return to an era that Hugo Chávez specifically fought against, where foreigners dominate the economy, which also means they have significant influence over the government's economic decisions. In the late 1980s that led to austerity policies that hurt a lot of people, followed by protests that were met with deadly force. Chávez stepped into politics in that context and people looked to him because theyir own elected leaders were not serving their interests.

It's now 40 years later. What replaced that splintered system is far worse and hurts most Venezuelans, so clearly change is needed. But the current U.S.-pushed plan to have foreign companies and billionaires swooping in will have long-term consequences. There are think tank conferences that say they're aimed at the Venezuelan private sector and I hope that becomes more common.

Regardless, are any of these folks discussing historical context as they go on about licensing, enforceable contracts, and regulatory obstacles? I hope so, though I am not terribly hopeful. Richard Branson doesn't know the history and almost certainly would have no interest in it. But Venezuelans do.

We constantly hear about the need for investment, protection of property rights, etc. but we don't hear anything about social programs. Early on, Chavismo gave many people hope who otherwise felt entirely outside the system. They were ultimately betrayed and they begin whatever new era we're in as outside the system once more.

Read more...

The Latin American Right Hearts Delcy

Imdat Oner has a good analysis at Responsible Statecraft about the Latin American right and Delcy Rodríguez. They were publicly critical of Nicolás Maduro's lack of legitimacy and now embrace Delcy because it's convenient. He goes through all the various reasons, which is worth reading and I won't bother repeating them. But I do not fully agree with this:

The decisive factor is Washington’s change of course. For many governments in Latin America, democratic principles and electoral legitimacy are becoming secondary considerations, defended mostly when they align with Washington’s preferences.

On the surface, yes, obviously, these are governments that want to remain in Trump's good graces and going along with this has no political cost. But there is something deeper here as well, a longstanding Latin American (or maybe everywhere) political pragmatism that manifests in all different ways. In a sense, this shouldn't surprise us at all.

Various examples:

--Hugo Chávez railed against the U.S. and international capitalism but happily continued selling oil to the U.S., thus helping a president he had referred to as the devil.

--Current right-wing governments publicly criticize China and quietly reinforce their economic ties.

--Evo Morales railed against capitalism and yet had a staunchly pro-capitalist Finance Minister.

--The Latin American right-wing railed against the Cuban dictatorship and was fine with Pinochet. 

--Latin American leftists railed against right-wing dictatorships and remained quiet about Cuba.

Maybe these aren't exactly apples to apples, like how a fly in your chardonnay actually isn't the same as a free ride when you've already paid. But going against your stated ideological beliefs in the name of self-interest is not all that unusual.

Read more...

Venezuelans Are Even More Unhappy With Delcy and Trump

Back in August I linked to a Meganalisis poll showing growing Venezuelan dissatisfaction with Trump and the state of affairs in Venezuela. The September poll shows that's just getting worse. They think, with considerable justification, that no one has any interest in the welfare of the Venezuelan people. Not Trump, not Delcy, not investors, not the negotiation teams, nobody. They want Chavistas out of power and they want elections. Things are bad and the status quo is not making them better. If anything, they're in worse shape financially and with power outages.

Here is the trajectory of feelings toward Donald Trump:

There is no doubt that most Venezuelans supported ousting Nicolás Maduro. But that action came with the expectation that things would get better. Instead, Trump has consistently said the U.S. is profiting from the invasion and Venezuelans are finally believing him, to the point that approval and disapproval have pretty much inverted since January 2026.

There's not much new to say about this. I think Venezuelans feel frustrated and helpless. They thought Trump was swooping in to help them and that just wasn't true. The administration could compel significant change and simply chooses not to. Meanwhile, Delcy and Co. are holding onto power with all their might, ceding only when forced. So things don't get better. Like the rest of us, they can only wait and see what happens with negotiations and María Corina Machado.

Read more...

Maria Corina Machado's Perspective

María Corina Machado gave an interview to the New York Times, which highlights how she differs from the Trump administration, primarily in terms of democracy, and frankly why they don't want her in power, though she is very careful with her language.

Some takeaways:

1. If she becomes president, some high-level people will be tried and some will go to prison. She says by a truth commission, which is not how they've worked in Latin America. They haven't been courts--their purpose has been to investigate and publicize what happened. Regardless, this will rock the political boat, and in a way that's inconvenient for the administration.

2. Rocking the political boat brings us to the military. She says she believes only the leaders want to persecute her and her followers, and lower levels of the military support her. We have no way of confirming or disconfirming that, but it's a reasonable argument on its face. Reassurance of not being put on trial (which she also does say is possible for lower level officials) will help a lot in that regard as well. As a side note, in Argentina lower level officials were granted an amnesty that actually years later was overturned, opening the door for prosecutions at a time when democracy was firmly entrenched.

3. The oil deals being done now will be looked at. She frames it as those "that have signed contracts right now would like to improve the terms of their contracts once we’re done." I don't know if everyone will have the same definition of "improve."

4. She mentions how a democratic transition will bring many thousands of Venezuelans back to their country, so a free election is good for U.S. immigration policy. This is a shrewd framing you don't hear very often.

Read more...

Brazil Remains (and Will Remain) Close to China

Roberto Simon writes about Brazil and China, and how their relationship upends the Trump administration. If Flávio Bolsonaro wins, he will move ideologically into Trump's orbit but that will not change Brazil's relationship with China, which is deep.

None of that, however, would meaningfully reverse China’s deepening economic influence in Brazil, or the belief among many Brazilian business executives and foreign policy elites that the best long-term strategy is to hedge against an increasingly unpredictable United States. 

If Brasília becomes the next Latin American capital to shift rightward, the region would be ideologically aligned with the United States to a degree not seen since at least the early 1990s, following the end of the Cold War. Yet the U.S. unipolar moment is long gone, including in Latin America. No matter who is in power in the region, Trump’s revived Monroe Doctrine is destined to collide with the reality of growing dependence on Chinese trade, investment, and technology.  

As Simon points out, it's common in Latin America for conservative presidential candidates to rail against China and then quietly (or sometimes even loudly) favor it when they take office. It just makes economic sense.

It's actually quite similar to Chile. As I wrote last December:

Keep that in mind for most other Latin American countries. The U.S. press in particular likes neat categories--there is a left and a right, and we can point to specific people who embody it. Presidential elections will be framed as wholesale change when in fact plenty of core policies will remain or at least will be tweaked without overturning them. China (and Europe) now have deep ties and those are not likely to change drastically. Add U.S. tariffs to the mix and the incentive to maintain friendly relations with China is even more evident.

It's important to keep emphasizing the point that despite ideological congruence, the U.S. is an unstable and unreliable partner right now and will be perceived as such for a while even after Trump is gone. He set the precedent for attacking your allies and it won't quickly be forgotten. 

Read more...

There Are Still Political Prisoners in Venezuela

The Economist has a great article about Venezuelan political prisoners. The context is that the U.S. accepts not pushing against authoritarianism because stability is prioritized far higher than democracy or human rights protections. The U.S. could force lots of positive change but chooses not to. This is obviously ideal for Delcy Rodríguez.

Prisoners serve three main purposes for the regime:

1. Bargaining chips with the U.S. The regime lets some people out, gets some good PR, stays in Trump's good graces, and stays in power.

2. A reminder to Venezuelans that the repressive apparatus is still functional so they need to be afraid. Protests are increasing and could get out of hand if people felt truly free.

3. A reminder to the armed forces that they support the regime or else. This is critical. The military has always been the linchpin of power, which is why Hugo Chávez was so careful about purging. Right now, there are 322 political prisoners, 140 (or 43%) of which are military.

The clear conclusion here is that freeing all political prisoners (and of course not taking more) is essential for weakening the regime, which unfortunately the Trump administration is not interested in at the moment. 

Read more...

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...