U.S. in Venezuela

How would intervention be seen? Guest writer

Venezuela’s chaotic economic and political situation, including rampant inflation, critical shortages of foodstuffs and medical supplies, street demonstrations and violent clashes between protesters and government forces has raised the specter of foreign intervention. Prominent Americans have called for the ouster of the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro. They have largely justified his removal based upon humanitarian concerns.

Last month Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raised the feasibility of a military coup to topple Maduro during an event at the Clements Center for National Security. A prominent Harvard economist proposed that Venezuela’s National Assembly impeach the democratically elected president and rewrite existing laws to justify military action by a coalition of Western countries. Opeds in the New York Times have also called for the use of military force to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe.

Given the United States’ recent policies toward Venezuela under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it is doubtful that any efforts at removing Maduro would be based upon such altruism. Such ideas are not only counterproductive, but given the United States’ recent and historical efforts at regime change, will not produce the desired results.

Beginning with the Bush administration, the United States has attempted to thwart the Bolivarian Revolution launched by the deceased Hugo Chávez. In 2002 a coup almost succeeded; however, popular backing reinstated Chávez. Successive administrations have pumped funds from U.S. institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy to destabilize the Chávez and Maduro regimes. Such blatant intervention further polarizes the country because it is correctly viewed as foreign meddling despite the claims of Washington policymakers.

Chávez’s broad restructuring of Venezuela’s socioeconomic foundations has resulted in the nationalization of private property—including oil companies—that had once been owned by foreign multinationals. For U.S. officials, Chávez is also guilty of redistributing power away from the traditional elites who have historically been backed by the United States and toward poorer Venezuelans. Regimes guilty of such offenses during the Cold War were often destabilized by the U.S., including Salvador Allende in Chile.

Both Chávez’s and Maduro’s mistakes and mismanagement have caused dislocations in the Venezuelan economy and resulted in corruption and graft. Observers have also remarked about the growing authoritarian turn in Venezuela. Despite the supposed totalitarianism, Maduro retains popular support. Over the course of the last three election cycles, Maduro’s party has won local, regional, and even national elections. In 2017 his approval ratings were higher than several of the U.S. allies in the region, including Honduras, Mexico, and Brazil. Maduro’s popularity rating was also higher than Donald Trump’s (one wonders how this must rankle Trump).

It is also hypocritical for U.S. commentators and officials to condemn Venezuelan despotism when our regional allies such as Honduras are guilty of wanton human-rights abuses, including the murder and disappearance of environmental activists, as well as high levels of political corruption.

U.S. meddling in Venezuela is likely to produce more negative than positive outcomes. Ever since the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, Washington has repeatedly justified military interventions on behalf of humanitarian justifications. Quite often, as in the case of Panama or Iraq, the actual intervention had little to do with humanitarian concerns and more with imperial policing. Venezuela fits the same mold.

While the plight of the Venezuelan economy and suffering is appalling, it is likely that a considerable portion of Venezuelans will view U.S. military force as an example of Yanquí imperialism. Our recent track record in Venezuela and beyond should inspire little confidence.