Venezuela: a time for action

Eduardo Del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Martes 19 de marzo, 2019

For the past twenty years we have been watching Venezuela self-destruct.

Now that the crisis has reached the point of utter desperation, Venezuelans and the international community are asking: what next?

Should the international community intervene militarily, or should it simply let the Venezuelans sort out their differences?

If the latter, how could Venezuelans broach dialogue and reconciliation?

At time of writing, Venezuela has been under a total power blackout for over one week leaving millions without electricity, water, or food. Many are dying in hospitals due to a lack of electricity to power life-saving equipment. This on top of the fact that numerous medicines have been in short supply or simply unavailable for a number of years.

The regime of Nicolás Maduro is accusing the President of the Congress Juan Guaidó of sabotaging Venezuela’s electrical infrastructure creating the current crisis (and is threatening to arrest him and try him on spurious charges). Meanwhile, the international community blames the crisis squarely on the Maduro regime’s corruption and gross mismanagement of the economic and physical infrastructure.

While the “Lima Group” (comprised of thirteen Latin American states and Canada) continues to lead the anti-Maduro charge internationally, the military leadership continues to side with Maduro. Thousands of Cuban intelligence officials continue to advise the regime in intelligence and security matters and thousands of armed thugs loyal to the regime – known as “colectivos” – continue to attack and kill peaceful demonstrators.

With deadly force on his side, Maduro seems to want to tough it out regardless of the number of lives lost or hopes destroyed. Over ten percent of the country’s population – some three million Venezuelans – have fled to neighboring states.

So, how can the situation be resolved, and how can Venezuela get back to normal?

Some observers say it´s up to Venezuelans themselves to depose the Maduro regime and return to real democracy. In their view, any intervention goes against international law and would likely lead to a bloodbath. They believe that dialogue is possible and negotiations can lead to resolution.

To date, however, negotiations have proven fruitless. Maduro remains opposed to free and fair elections, to allowing the opposition to participate without restriction, and to allowing a free and independent congress, media, and judiciary do their jobs.

As well, the regime has shown an unwillingness to allow democratic centers of power to fulfill their constitutional duty. It has marginalized the democratically elected Congress, and appointed a parallel one to do its bidding. The judiciary is completely owned by the regime, and all of the key governing and financial institutions are in the hands of Maduro cronies or the military, whose leadership has benefited immensely since Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999.

Venezuela is supported by China and Russia (to whom it owes tens of billions of dollars in outstanding loans), as well as Cuba, Iran, Hezbollah, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador and several Caribbean states that benefit from Venezuela’s largesse. The fact that Russia and China support Maduro makes any consensus on the United Nations Security Council impossible, while divisions in the Western hemisphere have made a unanimous consensus in the OAS impossible.

So, is a foreign military intervention a realistic option?

Despite the fears of a foreign military intervention leading to a bloodbath, the country is already suffering with dozens of demonstrators being killed every week, millions fleeing the country, and many dying of hunger, thirst, and disease in what once was the richest country in Latin America.

Should Guaidó be arrested and brought to trial for following the Chavez created constitution, the international community might conclude that it has to call Maduro’s bluff and intervene.

The military, absent a global amnesty and a promise that its leaders can keep their ill-gotten gains, could likely move to protect their interests and continue to support Maduro.

So, the international community appears to be left with a Hobson’s choice – either intervene, fully conscious of the possible consequences, or avoid intervening and allow Venezuela to agonize indefinitely.

Yet there may be a third option.

As noted above, absent a major shift by the military, negotiations that have thus far proven fruitless do not appear to be a viable option at this time, unless a general amnesty for military officers who support Maduro leads many of them to defect, leaving Maduro with the choice of either negotiating a peaceful departure or fighting to the bitter end.

Maduro might well see the benefits of leaving Venezuela for safer shores should the military abandon him. However, his militias and “colectivos” might also have to be included in the amnesty if there is to be a chance for peace.

As well, a democratic transition is not limited to replacing one President for another. It requires replacing an entire system of governance with another – from the top down. Steps must be taken to ensure that a proper police force is in place to preclude a breakdown of law and order. As well, the nation’s judiciary is in shambles and must be retrained and depoliticized. This is a huge undertaking in a country in which the authorities have been subjected to twenty years of political indoctrination and allowed to work in a state of impunity.

There is no guarantee that Venezuelans would want to reward past impunity and human rights violations.

Guaidó and other democratic leaders might decide to follow the previous examples of Nelson Mandela of South Africa and former King Juan Carlos of Spain and encourage Venezuelans to leave the past behind in order rid themselves of Maduro and create a new future, but they will have to lead a reluctant population through this process.

Venezuela may well be able to transit towards a government of reconstruction that would include all parties to the conflict and allow Venezuela to develop the democratic institutions of governance it so sorely needs if a dialogue is established and confidence building measures are pursued, but it will take a level of consensus hitherto absent in that country.

A “Marshall-type” investment plan funded by Venezuela’s Latin American neighbors and others in the international community for the reconstruction of Venezuela’s infrastructure will be required. And the lifting of whatever sanctions are currently in place could well provide Venezuela’s new leaders with the wherewithal to invest in infrastructure, especially in the all-important energy sector that has been mismanaged and bled dry of resources over the past few years.

Reconstruction will require patience on the part of Venezuelans and generosity on the part of the international community. The OAS, the Lima Group, and the U.N. all have a central role to play in assisting Venezuelans to establish good governance. Venezuela’s neighbors will have to be patient and sustain the millions of Venezuelan refugees until the economy can once again support them and employ their talents. And Canada and the United States, along with the wealthier Latin American nations, will have to contribute heavily to the economic infrastructure rebuilding plan until the petroleum industry and other extractive industries are capable of generating the funding required to meet Venezuela’s needs.

Is a peaceful transition possible?

I think that it is.

But it will require good faith and flexibility on the part of all players and the establishment of a real dialogue so that all sides can work together for the common good of all Venezuelans.

[b][email protected][/b]