The Future of Venezuela

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Martes 5 de febrero, 2019

The question no longer seems to be if Nicolás Maduro will leave power in Venezuela, but, rather, how and when.

Will his departure be peaceful and lead to a democratic transition, or will it lead to civil war and countless, mindless, deaths and the further destruction of Venezuelan society?

The world is watching, and the majority of Venezuelans appear to be looking for a quick and peaceful transition to democracy.

But recent actions by President Donald Trump’s administration may well run the risk of turning what could be a peaceful transition into something worse.

On January 29, 2019, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton was photographed with a notepad on which “5000 troops to Colombia” was strategically placed for photographers to capture. Bolton is not known for subtle diplomacy and has, in the past, been associated with the most interventionist elements of a number of Republican administrations.

Similarly, Elliot Abrams, the U.S. official who was responsible for managing U.S. policy during the civil wars in various countries of Central America in the 1980´s, is back as President Trump’s Special Representative for Venezuela.

While this may simply be strategic posturing by the United States, it could well be misconstrued in a region that has long been wary of any military intervention by the U.S.

Making Bolton’s notes obvious to media may reflect actual U.S. military policy or may simply be an attempt to exert some psychological warfare tactics against the Maduro regime. Regardless, there is the unlikely, but still possible, chance that Bolton may have also inadvertently given Maduro a straw to cling to – the perception that the regime is fighting against a possible armed U.S. intervention.

The key players in this dance macabre are the military leadership and many of their rank and file who may not take kindly to being perceived as surrendering to a U.S. military intervention.

Since coming to prominence, Juan Guaidó, the acting president recognized by many Western and Latin American governments as well as the Organization of American States (OAS), has had a distinct advantage over Maduro. The National Assembly over which he presides is the only remaining democratically elected political institution in Venezuela, and has a moral and legal legitimacy that Maduro lacks. Guaidó’s claim to office is recognized in the constitution – hence his claim to legitimacy.

He may never obtain the support of die-hard regime apologists, but he stands the best chance in years of uniting the hitherto divided political opposition. More importantly, perhaps, he might be well placed to galvanize the country’s real power brokers, the military, to support popular demands for a return to democracy after two decades of economic and political mismanagement.

Indeed, while some may argue that the fundamental problem has been the failure of the radical far left socialist model to deliver results, I place equal blame on the determination of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro to govern as autocratic populists by eliminating fragile Venezuelan democratic institutions.

The forced disappearance of an independent banking system, a strong central bank, an independent media and judiciary, and a private sector capable of creating the jobs required to fund a positive socialist experiment, have all contributed to the current political and economic morass in which the country finds itself.

Now Maduro is at a decision point, and neither option plays in his favor.

He either agrees to the creation of a transitional democratic government and loses power definitively, or, he sinks the country into a civil war.

Maduro claimed office as a result of a fraudulent election, according to constitutional experts.

Guaidó represents a fresh face in the struggle for a return to democracy in Venezuela.

He is too young to be associated with previous governments or political parties. His political statements have been inclusive, and he appears to be moderate enough to know that Maduro and his military backers need a face-saving way out of the current dilemma.

The military is essential to laying the groundwork for a smooth transition.

Could a U.S. military intervention cause the Venezuelan military to close ranks around Maduro to fight off any impression that they have sold out to the U.S. rather than re-position itself to be part of a peaceful solution?

Should a U.S. military intervention occur, could Guaidó be cast as a U.S. proxy at a considerable political cost to him and his movement? When it comes to perceived or real U.S. interference, many Latin Americans react viscerally and sometimes not strategically.

Questions to be weighed.

I believe that the United States should, in the short term, allow the Latin American community to steer both sides towards a dialogue that gives Maduro a face-saving and peaceful way out of power and out of the country.

Absent this, the threat of violence is real.

Guaidó’s supporters will continue to hold mass demonstrations, and Maduro could well unleash his armed supporters against them.

Maduro has an armed people’s militia estimated at 1.6 million in addition to the military that has, to date, publicly supported his regime and carried out myriad acts of violence against supporters of the opposition. In addition, Russian advisors and thousands of Cuban security and intelligence officers currently occupy key positions throughout the country and could pose a real threat to a negotiated peaceful transition.

As well, in recent days, Maduro has reportedly sold several tons of Venezuelan gold to the United Arab Emirates in exchange for Euros destined to support his regime in the wake of U.S. sanctions. There are reports that more gold sales are planned. If the international community does not take steps to encourage potential clients to avoid buying Venezuelan financial assets, they may well continue to fill Maduro’s coffers with the hard currency he needs to finance continued military support.

For those who accuse Washington of interference, the significant Russian and Cuban penetration of Venezuelan security institutions should pose equal concern. I have yet to see any widespread condemnation of Russian or Cuban involvement in Venezuela among other Latin American states, especially the Latin American Left that so vociferously rails against the U.S. but seems to prefer to give Russia and Cuba a free pass.

Both Russia and China are owed billions of dollars by the Maduro government. They will seek to protect their investment in Venezuela and will use their leverage in the United Nations Security Council and among international financial institutions to seek to ensure that any transition government respects outstanding loans. One must bear in mind that Venezuela’s economic recovery will cost billions, and this will require a concerted effort by the international community if an incoming government is to succeed in reversing the economic mistakes of the past twenty years.

The objectives of both Venezuelans and the international community must be 1) the peaceful return of democratic governance to Venezuela, 2) the exit from the country of Maduro and his coterie of senior supporters, 3) the establishment of a national dialogue leading to national reconciliation, 4) the disarming of armed militias, 5) the return of Venezuela to an international community based on democratic governance and 6) acknowledgement that the concerns of Venezuela’s creditors must be taken into account so that they do not impede a transition to a viable and functioning democracy.

Without this, the risk is very great that further bloodshed will ensue, with no guarantee that Venezuelans will be better off in the aftermath.

[b][email protected][/b]