Experts say ousting Venezuela’s Maduro without violence is unlikely
WASHINGTON — The pressure is building on Nicolas Maduro.
A host of European countries recognized Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s president Monday, after Maduro predictably failed to meet their eight-day deadline to schedule free and fair elections. President Donald Trump and congressional leaders say all options are on the table. And recently announced U.S. oil sanctions will begin to take effect in the coming weeks as the international community attempts to send humanitarian aid to Venezuelans without Maduro’s assistance.
But Maduro’s past attempts to consolidate power, combined with an unprecedented international response to recognize a leader who does not control the country’s military, institutions or a portion of territory, does not have a direct correlation with other U.S.-backed efforts in Latin America and elsewhere. Experts who are both skeptical and supportive of the decision to recognize Guaido’s government and a warp-speed time frame to hold elections in a matter of weeks say violence beyond the sporadic street clashes over the past few weeks is likely, whether or not foreign troops enter the country.
“I don’t see Maduro leaving peacefully,” said Eric Farnsworth, a former State Department official who is now a vice president of the Council of the Americas and a supporter of the decision to recognize Guaido. “He’s not going to wake up with an epiphany, he’s going to have to be forced out. If it happens, it’s going to be by Venezuelans ... members of the security forces or members of his own coalition, if they see him as ineffective.”
Farnsworth is a critic of arguments made by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and former Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes in a Washington Post op-ed last week, who said recognizing Guaido puts the U.S. in an inflexible position if Maduro doesn’t relent.
“Chest-thumping declarations that melt away over time weaken American power and credibility,” Rhodes and Murphy wrote. “In Venezuela, if the armed forces continue to back Maduro, then last week’s move may come to look feckless, while offering Maduro the opportunity to rally his domestic and foreign backers against U.S. intervention. Reckless talk of military options only compounds this problem.”
Rhodes and Murphy’s argument differed from other Democrats who argued that sanctions on Venezuelan oil would further cripple Venezuela’s economy and hinder the ability for people to obtain food and medicine.
Shannon O’Neil, a senior fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the decision to recognize Guaido is a “huge break from precedent” where governments continue to recognize de facto leaders who control institutions.
“If you look back historically the U.S. was not pleased with the Soviet Union for 50 plus years but they still recognized them,” O’Neil said. “I think Ben Rhodes and Chris Murphy were right, it’s a risky move. Not only are you condemning Maduro, you’re taking it one step further by saying we don’t recognize his right to rule because he wasn’t elected.”
O’Neil said the move by the U.S. and dozens of other countries is unprecedented.
“You give a rallying focus and hopefully momentum builds behind this person,” O’Neil said. “The risk is that if that doesn’t happen, then you’re stuck in this limbo with fewer alternatives than if you held your cards a little bit closer.”
Farnsworth said the situation in Venezuela is unique, though the U.S. involvement and eventual invasion to oust Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989 is the best comparison to the current situation. In that case, the U.S. recognized Guillermo Endara as president on the eve of invading the country, even though Endara did not control the military or a sizable portion of territory. Both countries have a prized asset that generated billions in revenue — the Panama Canal and Venezuela’s massive oil reserves.