Tag Archives: Venezuela

Collapse of Maduro Regime Would Be a Victory for Liberty Everywhere

Originally published by Newsmax:

The Venezuelan people’s battle for freedom from corruption, hunger, and socialist tyranny continues.

Unfortunately for Venezuela, that fight looks to be nowhere near over and may not be for some time. Unless the opposition steps up the pressure dramatically — and relentlessly — and unless tangible outside help arrives soon, Maduro will remain in power.

After the first tumultuous days when hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to support the courageous declaration as interim president by opposition leader and National Assembly president Juan Guaidó, and many countries (including the U.S.) quickly backed him, enough of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela remain loyal to the Maduro regime that its grip on power has not yet been seriously shaken. The January 24, 2019, pledge of support from the hopelessly corrupt Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino and key members of the Venezuelan top brass assured Maduro that the military was still under his control (and patronage).

Guaidó has offered amnesty to soldiers who defect to his side and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promised more than $20 million in humanitarian aid to Venezuela at a January 24 special meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS); Pompeo also called on the 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on January 26 to “stand with the forces of freedom.” At the same time, though, Maduro regime support from China, Cuba, Hizballah, Iran, and Russia demonstrates the global character of the struggle against oppression and tyranny. Some of Maduro’s support has economic implications — Cuba receives some 50,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil a day and both Beijing and Moscow have extended billions in credit to the Maduro regime — but an even more important frame of reference is the seemingly perpetual conflict between those who would dominate the human spirt (communism/socialism, fascism, Islamic supremacism) and those who fight for the right of the individual to live free.

Whether the forces that seek to crush individual liberty prevail in the end, in Venezuela or globally, depends on multiple factors. Of key importance in Venezuela are the willingness of the military to continue obeying regime orders and any decision about calling out Cuban, Iranian/Hizballah, or Russian security forces to preserve Maduro in power. The Trump administration’s calculated ratcheting up of pressure (diplomatic, financial, and perhaps more) against Maduro (as well as his supporters in Havana and Moscow), in coordination with tangible support to Guaidó and offers of amnesty or lenient treatment for senior regime officials will all help tip the balance.

In the end, though, the irrepressible will of human beings to be free will matter more than the OAS, UNSC, or any other organization. Unfortunately, too, it is more likely than not that the end of the Maduro regime will be chaotic and violent rather than orderly or voluntary. Its eventual replacement seems inevitable, though, and a victory for the Venezuelan people will likewise be a victory for human liberty everywhere.

Clare Lopez: Chaos in Venezuela

Originally published on Newsmax:

Hundreds of thousands of desperate, hungry, fed-up Venezuelans took to the streets today in cities all over the country after Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez, president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela, declared himself Interim President.

Statements of official recognition and support quickly followed from U.S. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials, Canada, and many countries in Central and South America. The governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey, notably, remain solidly behind current President Nicolas Maduro.

By day’s end, Maduro cut off diplomatic ties with the U.S. and gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. The Trump administration fired back, saying through a spokesman that “all options are on the table.”

While the diplomatic, moral, and verbal support of the U.S. and other regional countries is surely important, what will matter even more are several factors likely beyond any of their control.

Will the Venezuelan people remain on the streets this time, no matter what?

Will the Venezuelan military remain loyal to Maduro even to the point of firing live rounds at their fellow Venezuelans? (The answer to that may already be coming into view, as there have been reports of live fire from the Venezuelan Guardia Nacional and casualties earlier today.)

Will Maduro’s Cuban, Hizballah, and/or Iranian “security advisors” take an even more active, direct role in putting down what may be the most serious challenge to Maduro’s rule yet?

Stay tuned, as Diosdado Cabello, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly and reportedly one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, has called Maduro supporters to defend Miraflores Palace, the official presidential residence, in downtown Caracas.

Steps Venezuela’s interim government must take – quickly – to survive

Venezuela’s interim government materialized without much apparent organization. Active observation and participation in various coups and revolutions shows what the Juan Guaidó government and its supporters must do immediately. Here are some quick thoughts, not in any particular order:

  • Gain control of at least one branch of the armed forces, and police units at any regional or municipal level possible.
  • Organize a citizen-led occupation of all airports. Encourage masses of people to park vehicles on runways to prevent aircraft from landing or taking off – and to make way for flights that will benefit the new government.
  • Round up all Cuban personnel. If you don’t, they will cause you endless trouble. Interrogate them, put them on trial, use them as bargaining chips – but don’t let them go.
  • Take over the SEBIN security service. This is the nerve center of the Maduro regime.
    • Cut off all electric power, gas, communications, and water from all SEBIN facilities.
    • Do not let SEBIN personnel in or out.
    • Arrest the top two ranks of SEBIN officers at national, regional, and city levels. Citizens’ arrests are OK.
    • Allow senior SEBIN officers to defect if they cooperate in taking control of their underlings.
    • Give most SEBIN personnel on payroll as long as they are loyal to the new government.
    • Reward defectors and informers who turn over SEBIN personnel suspected of the worst abuses.
    • Be tough with those who don’t cooperate, or you’ll end up on their end of the gun.
  • Secure the loyalty of permanent government employees.
    • Remove the top two levels of every bureaucracy, and promote lower level officials to the top. Most of the rest will obey just to keep their jobs.
    • To reduce resistance, reassure all bureaucrats that they need not be fearful if they obey the interim government.
    • Keep all officials on payroll for the interim if they and their leaders are loyal to the interim government.
  • Take control of all “permanent machinery” of the state:
    • Cryptographic equipment and codes (military, SEBIN, diplomatic, etc.),
    • SEBIN archives of informants and repressive apparatus;
    • All bureaucratic files and records;
    • Government personnel and payroll records and systems.
  • Take control of all means of communication: telephone, Internet, radio & TV.
    • Break the connections of those that you cannot control.
    • Create new means of communication that you can control.
  • Block travel routes of regime targets,
    • especially roads and streets between and among official offices, clubhouses, bunkers, and homes.
    • Block airport runways, as described above.
  • Divide the regime against itself.
    • Provide amnesty and incentives for certain regime figures and their families.
      • It’s unpleasant, but you want to win with minimal humanitarian suffering.
    • Force regime figures to betray one another, or otherwise sell one another out.
      • This is Venezuela! Infighting is the national sport.
  • Request international assistance.
    • Ask the British government to lock down Venezuela’s gold reserves held in London.
    • Request urgent international humanitarian aid – especially basic food and medicine. Don’t be afraid to withhold food and medicine from hostile forces and hostile civilians. Incentivize cooperation.
    • Seek special support to round up Cuban, Iranian, Hezbollah, ISIS, and other foreign personnel in Venezuela.
  • Document EVERYTHING.
    • Let everyone know of your progress, and your popular support.
    • Show every victory, small and large.
    • Expose the weaknesses and crimes of the regime and regime targets.
    • Save evidence for future trials.

As Venezuelan Dictator Begins Another Term, U.S. Officials Condemn Illegitimacy

U.S. leaders denounced the Maduro presidency as illegitimate as the dictator began his second term in Venezuela. Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton weighed in on Twitter.

While condemning the authoritarian leader’s illegitimacy, Pompeo and Bolton also expressed U.S. support for Venezuela’s National Assembly.


Last year U.S. leaders including Vice President Pence blasted the Maduro regime and decried the election as illegitimate.

During a speech in 2018 Bolton identified Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as the “Troika of tyranny,” leveling scathing criticism against the trio.

“This troika of tyranny, this triangle of terror stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua is the cause of immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western hemisphere,” Bolton declared.

In a Fox News interview in 2018, then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley described the dire circumstances she witnessed as she watched people cross the Venezuelan border into Columbia in order to obtain food.

“I was on the Venezuelan border about a month ago and I saw, literally, a million people cross that border every day for their only meal,” Haley noted, saying that there were “people bringing their last possessions to sell in Columbia just to buy food. And this is all because of failed socialism that led to corruption, a dictatorship and poverty.”

President Trump himself described the desperate situation in Venezuela and emphasized the deplorability of socialism during a 2018 UN speech:

More than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the socialist Maduro regime and its Cuban sponsors. Not long ago Venezuela was one of the richest countries on earth. Today socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty. Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried it has produced suffering, corruption and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone. In that spirit, we ask the nations gathered here to join us in calling for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.

Trump Administration Has Taken Important Steps on Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua But Must Upgrade Sanctions

International Community must join U.S efforts

The House of Representatives approved the Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality Act (NICA), which is a set of sanctions against the Nicaraguan government and its accomplices. Late in November, the Senate approved the measure and it is expected to be signed by President Donald Trump. Once NICA is signed by the president, the Treasury Department will instruct the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to oppose the approval of credits for Nicaragua. Likewise, the assets of those responsible for repression in Nicaragua will be frozen and visas to these individuals will be denied.

This major measure against the Nicaraguan government follows a set of sanctions that were imposed on Nicaragua’s first lady late in November and also against Venezuela and Cuba.

Early in November, the Trump administration also imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan government that target the gold sector and prohibit American citizens from doing any deals with that sector. This follows sanctions imposed on four key people who are part of the inner circle of the Venezuelan government on grounds of corruption and human right violations. They include Nicolas Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, his wife, Cilia Flores as well as the Defense Minister, Padrino Lopez, and the information minister, Jorge Rodriguez.

By the same token, last March, President Trump issued an executive action that would prohibit transactions made with the Venezuelan digital currency, Petro. Then in May, Trump issued an order prohibiting the purchase of Venezuelan debts.

Then the Administration spoke about the possibility of adding Venezuela to the list of countries that sponsor terrorism given Venezuela’s multiple connections with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The Administration also turned its arrows on Cuba last month when it announced that it is considering imposing sanctions on Cuban military and intelligence officials for assisting Venezuela in cracking down on political dissent. The idea is to make sure that the Cuban military and political leadershipdo notget access to U.S. dollars.

These developments are extremely important at this time after a lost decade under the Obama Administration when a futile reconciliation was sought with Venezuela and Cuba.

This new strategy has been laid out by National Security Advisor John Bolton in a speech delivered at the Miami Dade College early in November. Bolton pointed out that “in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua we see the perils of poisonous ideologies left unchecked and the dangers of domination and suppression.” “Under this Administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores”and “we will champion the independence and liberty of our neighbors”.

These words are, indeed, dramatic and represent a breakthrough with the passivity displayed during the past almost two decades.

Bolton called Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua the “Troika of Tyranny” and defined them as a source of regional instability. This represents an important recognition that these countries are dictatorships that not only violate human rights but also hold connections to rogue and criminal elements that destabilize the region.

Bolton also rejected the fallacy of maintaining secret communications with Cuba, a device that has served the regime to avoid pressure to decompress its authoritarian rule. Thus, Bolton announced that pressure on the Cuban government would continue. In addition, Bolton denounced Cuban support for the Venezuelan regime and declared his intention to achieve freedom for the Venezuelan people.

This policy is what many in our circles have been advocating for decades.

However, the United States cannot do it alone. The next step should be to make sure that these countries do not establish alliances with other countries. Russia and China are already supporting these regimes and will continue to do so. The question is whether European and Latin American countries could follow suit and help exercise effective pressure.

At this point the European Union has imposed travel bans and asset freezes against some senior officials in the Maduro government. However, Maduro himself has not been targeted.

Likewise, it imposed an arms embargo onwhich Venezuela does not depend. Major financial sanctions have not been imposed yet and it is not clear if they are willing to follow the “Bolton Doctrine.”

Furthermore, in Spain, the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez and his far-left parliamentary allies such as the party PODEMOS, not only support Nicolas Maduro but some of them have even served as Maduro’s advisors. Sanchez, who is a relative moderate, has fallen under pressure from his political partners and has expressed public support for dialogue. From years of experience, we know that dialogue is a total farce and a way to keep domestic and international pressure on the regime at bay.

Latin American countries have been solid in their calls for support of democracy in Venezuela and the region. However, they have done nothing practical to make things happen. Last September the member countries of the “Lima Group” (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Guyana and Saint Lucia), a group formed to resolve the Venezuelan crisis, issued a weak statement calling for a dialogue and negotiations. By the same token, it miserably failed to impose financial sanctions. Furthermore, that statement was interpreted by the Colombian government as a criticism of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who has been a true leader in promoting democracy in Venezuela.

Therefore, Colombia and Canada refused to sign the statement. So far, Latin American countries have not frozen assets of individuals responsible for human rights violations or imposed any type of sanctions or restrictions. As former U.S Ambassador Patrick Duddy has rightly pointed out “Although two or three (Latin American leaders) have flirted with the idea of imposing financial and travel restrictions on key Venezuelan officials, most have limited themselves to criticism and expressions of concern”.

Latin American countries must stop this nonsense and have the courage to impose sanctions on human rights violators onthe continent.

In order to implement the doctrine presented by John Bolton in Miami in themost effective way, it is probably a good idea to follow the model of Iran sanctions. In other words, if European companies decide to do business with these countries it would not be possible to do business with the United States. Sanctions not only need to be expanded but also be elevated to the status of Iran sanctions.

It is important to start with the designation of Venezuela as a terrorist state as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and others have suggested, with a willingness to target its oil industry. If the concern is with the Louisiana refineries, they are likely to survive as oil barrels will continue to come from Canada and in addition these refineries are already looking for alternative oil suppliers.  A recent report spoke about an expected increase in the demand for jobs in these refineries, despite the huge decline in oil production in Venezuela.

This is a step that must be taken because it is becoming a threat to regional stability and national security. Venezuela is already adopting the Cuban model of domestic and foreign policy. Nicaragua is next and Bolivia is most likely to follow.

The Cuban model is a stubborn system that conducts brutal repression, and does not care about legitimacy or the well-being of civil society. The regime seeks to stay in power at any price.

This model endangers regional democracy as it uses elections to thereaftertransform the country into a dictatorship. This has taken place in Venezuela and in Nicaragua and very well could happen againelsewhere in the region.

What the current Administration is doing has tremendous importance and it would be highly significant and meaningful if the international community were to join these efforts now.

The Khashoggi, Alban And Nisman Cases: Are We Consistent on Our Human Rights Policies?

The death of the Saudi citizen and Washington post journalist Jamal Khashoggi generated great concern in the west and rightly so. Indeed, he was a resident of West Virginia, murdered and dismembered by Saudi security officials in the very building of the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

The outrage was great and justified and the Saudi explanations about the circumstances of the incidents were as absurd and clumsy as the act of murdering the journalist.

The circumstances of Khashoggi’s death continued to be covered up as many sectors of the American public and media questioned if we should continue the kind of alliance we have had with Saudi Arabia. A bipartisan group of Senators wrote a letter to President Trump requesting that he decide whether sanctions should be imposed on Saudi individuals and leaders under the 2017 Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Under this law, thepresident must decide whether to impose sanctions on a foreign person or persons responsible for extra-judicial killings, torture, or violators of human rights who seek to suppress dissidence.

However, are we being consistent in terms of our human rights policy, or are we reacting only to high-profile cases that are widely covered by the media, or to specific group pressure, or some other dependent factors?

Coincidently,a few days after the disappearance of Khashoggi, a Venezuelan councilman from the dissident party,Primero Justicia, was allegedly murdered by the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. The description of the alleged murder was no less outrageous. In fact, it is amazingly similar.

Caracas Councilman Fernando Alban was arrested at the Simon Bolivar International Airport upon arrival from a trip to the United Nations General Assembly that he attended to denounce the Maduro government’s human rights violations. Alban was first accused by the Venezuelan government of plotting to kill the president. Later he died in dubious circumstances while he was in the custody of the secret police (SEBIN). Venezuelan officials claimed he committed suicide by jumping from the 10thfloor of the police building. However, it is widely believed that Alban was murdered and then thrown from the police building to make it appear as a suicide. Like in the case of Khashoggi, the opposition accuses the government of torturing and murdering him. At the time of Alban’s murder, the chairman of the SenateForeign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, was visiting Caracas and met with Maduro ironically to “get a sense of a way forward” in U.S. relations with Venezuela. Corker defined his meeting with Maduro as “very good,” but it is not clear why.

Although the Alban case in Venezuela generated some condemnations and reactions from the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the European Union, the impact of the Alban case was minimal in comparison to that generated by the murder of Khashoggi. The Trump Administration issued a statement accusing the Maduro regime of the murder. Senators Marco Rubio and Congressmen Ileana Ross-Lethinen, Carlos Curbelo, Albio Sires and Mario Diaz Balart held a press conference where they expressed their belief that Alban was murdered by the Venezuelan government and demanded more sanctions on Venezuela and on the perpetrators of the crime.

To be sure, in Latin America murders that look like suicide or accidents have happened often. The Cuban government is believed to have eliminated human rights activist Oswaldo Paya in 2012. On the surface, it looked like a car accident but many in Cuba and outside are convinced that it was an act of murder by the government. The Obama Administration normalized relations with Cuba two years later and this episode was quickly forgotten.

In Argentina, more than three years ago, prosecutor Alberto Nisman mysteriously died hours before he was to give testimony against the then Argentinean president Cristina Kirchner. The official version stated that Nisman committed suicide. However, very few in Argentina and abroad believed this version. Most recently an Argentinean Federal Court confirmed that Nisman was murdered in his own home after being drugged and beaten by two individuals.

Nisman was murdered because he was accusing then president Cristina Kirchner and some of her closest ministers and aids of covering up Iran’s responsibility in the terrorist attack that took place against the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires in 1994.

Nisman maintained strong cooperation with the American security establishment and was fighting against the absolution of Iran at a time when Iran was an important issue in the United States given the Islamic Republic’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its continued support for terrorist activities and its interference in Syria and Iraq. Yet, there were no major reactions from the Obama Administration, most members of Congress or the media.

Certainly, Argentina was not pressured then as Saudi Arabia is being pressured now. At that time from the pages of The Washington Times and the Center for Security Policy, I published this piece, urging the U.S. government to declare the then Argentinean government led by Cristina Kirchner and her cabinet members as personas non-grata and deny them entry visas to the U.S. The article had repercussions in Argentina but fell on deaf ears in the United States. The Kirchner government was relieved that the U.S. did not apply pressure on them. That attitude gave a pass to the Kirchner government to present the crime any way they wished.This was only rectified after the Argentinean government changed to a new administration. To this day, it is still not clear who orderedNisman ‘s murder and how it was carried out.

So, what is our criteria when we decide to act or ignore an episode that constitutes an act of murder or a violation of human rights?

What is the logic that we follow?

It is true that the Global Magnitsky Law did not exist in 2015 when Nisman mysteriously “committed suicide”. The 2012 Magnitsky Law existed but applied only to Russia.

Now we have the Global Magnitsky Law and there is no excuse not to increase sanctions on the entirety of the Venezuelan political, military, and security establishment. Perhaps we need to go further and impose measures that would enable these people to be tried in the United States as we did with former Panama dictator,Manuel Noriega. 

There is no question that we need imperatives like the Magnitsky and the Global Magnitsky Acts precisely in order not to discriminate between cases such as Khashoggi’s, Alban’s, Nisman’s, Paya’s or victims of the Putin regime. But still, the Global Magnitsky Act requires a letter from high ranking Foreign Affairs Committee Senators. In other words, our human rights policy depends on the kinds of people like Senator Corker who still have a problem recognizing Venezuela and Nicaragua as ruthless dictatorships and gross human rights violators that challenge regional and national security.

This brings us back to square one. There is something fundamentally wrong in the way we are approaching political and human rights crimes. What is our definition of what constitutes a human rights crime? Do we have one? If not, we will continue to depend on media coverage and pressure groups that will define it for us.

We need to find a bipartisan consensus to this problem that has made us selective in the way we approach such an important moral and political challenge.

DECISION BRIEF: US should arm Venezuelans to take their country back

Decision: The United States should help Venezuelans take their country back by themselves. But it should not start another war of choice. Instead, the U.S. should provide arms, equipment, training, intelligence, and logistical support to worthy Venezuelans to organize their own insurgent force and fight for their country.

Reason: The Administration is actively seeking ways to solve the Venezuela crisis and the President has ruled nothing out. In his September 25 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump encouraged nations to exercise their sovereignty while seeking support “for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.” He later made more pointed comments. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has publicly encouraged the Venezuelan democratic opposition.

“Restoration of democracy” talk is the unfortunate rhetoric of armchair strategists who cook up American-led military invasions to change a regime and occupy the country. The US must not become involved in more wars of choice. Yet, the Bolivarian regime in Venezuela, kept in power by Cuban security personnel, is an international threat. The Venezuelan people themselves can solve the problem, provided the United States and others can help them to mutual benefit.

Background: Venezuela’s socialist “Bolivarian” regime presents a range of threats to the United States and the region. For the years prior to its near-collapse, the regime was the source of deliberate and planned regional subversion and destabilization. Chavez’s chosen successor, Nicholas Maduro, continues to sustain with his country’s declining oil exports the dying communist tyranny in Cuba that, in turn, secures and otherwise props him up. Maduro’s narco-regime also hosts jihadists and their terrorist groups, like Hezbollah. It has ominous relations with Communist China, Iran, and Russia. Its economic and social collapse has created humanitarian and refugee crises that threaten the hemisphere.

The Organization of American States (OAS) is a hemispheric body intended to resolve such problems. Its socialist leader, Luis Almagro, has strongly criticized the Venezuela regime, but has thus far offered no affirmative solutions, apart from denunciations and sanctions. The Obama administration neglected the OAS while Almagro curtailed and dismantled the organization’s hemispheric security architectures and programs. While Almagro makes little effort to hide his hostility toward the United States, he has, nonetheless, bought favor with the Trump administration and many in Congress by harshly denouncing the Venezuelan regime.

Some of Venezuela’s neighbors may be willing to allow a Venezuelan resistance army to use their territory as safe haven for bases and logistics.

In his speech to the United Nations, President Trump called for strengthening Western hemispheric security, and encouraged countries to exercise their own sovereignty while cooperating to solve problems. Trump singled out the Venezuelan regime, however, observing that Venezuela is not a sovereign country, but is ruled under “the socialist Maduro regime and its Cuban sponsors.”

The “Cuban sponsors” point is important. “Around the world,” Trump told the UN, “responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty, not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.”

Precedent: The United States has a successful precedent for arming people oppressed by a regime that surrendered national sovereignty to Cuba and other powers. That precedent was President Reagan’s support for the Nicaraguan resistance that fought the Soviet-sponsored Sandinista regime in the 1980s. Opposition to his arming of the Nicaraguan resistance or “Contras” was driven by Soviet active measures campaigns and Sandinista supporters in the US.

The Contras nonetheless succeeded in their goal to force the Sandinista regime to allow free and fair elections, and the Nicaraguan people voted for the candidate whom the Contras had supported. The problem was poor follow-through on the U.S. side: The Bush ’41 administration abandoned the Contras as the Sandinistas assassinated them after the elections. It then allowed the Sandinistas to rule from below and through the security apparatus with impunity. Those strategic policy failures from the American side allowed the Sandinistas to remain a problem ever since. Indeed, their leader, Daniel Ortega was returned to power in 2007 and has been running the country into the ground ever since. Yet, there are successful ways to dismantle the remains of totalitarian regimes to prevent such a deplorable resurgence.

Consistency with current U.S. strategy and policy: Helping Venezuelans to fight for their own country is consistent with President Trump’s national security strategy and policy:

  • It promotes U.S. security interests while respecting Venezuela’s national sovereignty.
  • It empowers the Venezuelan people to fight for their own country, rather than abandoning their homeland as refugees.
  • It will help resolve Venezuela’s catastrophic refugee crisis that destabilizes the region.
  • It reinforces new sanctions that alone are insufficient to solve the problem.
  • It removes the undesirable option for the US to lead a conventional invasion force.
  • It provides an alternative to the discredited “wars of choice” that plague American strategic thinking.
  • It will be a strategic blow to Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Communist China in the region.

The Bottom Line: President Trump should encourage Venezuelans to fight to take their country back, and help those courageous enough to do so. Among other things, he should:

  • Authorize the Department of Defense and CIA to help Venezuelan opposition figures rapidly to organize and raise an insurgent Venezuelan resistance army to liberate their country from the Cuban-backed Bolivarian regime.
  • Mandate proper recruitment, vetting, training, equipping, and arming of a Venezuelan resistance army, and provide those forces with proper logistical and intelligence support.
  • Seek and welcome all forms of support from friendly countries.
  • Take appropriate measures against any government or group that opposes the effort.
  • Narrowly limit any U.S. military action to special operations against Cuban, Iranian, Hezbollah, narcotraffickers, and regime targets, and to certain forms of defense of the Venezuelan resistance army.

DB_US_Should_Arm_Venezuelans[1]

 

Tillerson’s Latin America visit positive, but work in progress

Last week, U.S Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited several countries in Latin America. The main goal of his trip was to reach a consensus on a possible oil embargo against Venezuela.

The reactions to this idea were good overall. Despite some obstacles, Tillerson’s visit launched an important and unprecedented process.

In Argentina, Tillerson and his counterpart Jorge Faurie announced that they would study the possibility of imposing oil sanctions on Venezuela in order to force the regime of Nicolas Maduro to restore the constitutional order and allow for free elections. It is important to point out that the administration of Mauricio Macri already expressed support for a U.S oil embargo of Venezuela.

The Argentinean approach could be an important addition to the coalition built by the U.S. One day after his return to Washington, Secretary Tillerson announced an American dialogue with Canada and Mexico aimed at addressing concerns regarding the impact of an oil embargo on Venezuela. The idea is how to make up for the consequences of an oil embargo that might affect the people of Venezuela as well as countries that depend on Venezuelan oil.

Furthermore, Tillerson visited Jamaica, one of those countries that depend on Venezuelan oil. Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness, standing alongside the U.S Secretary of State pointed out that the region is moving beyond dependence on Venezuelan oil as the country can acquire oil from other countries including the United States that “is becoming a net exporter of energy sources”.

The Jamaican PM’s statement is most crucial because it suggests that the entire group of Caribbean countries that benefit from Venezuelan oil largesse have alternatives. Last summer, Caribbean countries aborted condemnations of Venezuela at the Organization of American States (OAS), mainly because of their dependence on Venezuelan oil.

If Mexico along with Canada becomes one of the suppliers of oil to the Caribbean countries that still depend on Venezuelan oil, Mexico could play an important role in deposing a regime that has turned into a major regional threat. Mexico pledged to Tillerson that Mexico is committed to play an active role in the Venezuelan case.

Tillerson also visited Colombia and Peru. These two countries along with Mexico are on board in their opposition to the Maduro government.

It is important to point out that an oil embargo may not be enough. In reaction to Tillerson’s effort Maduro pointed out that “If the United Stated decides to sanction oil, our ships will go to other places and we will continue to sell.”

This is why it would be wise for Tillerson to also support, along with the oil embargo, a naval blockade and offer incentives for military officers to dessert Maduro. I developed this idea in a previous article.

Interestingly enough, while Tillerson was visiting the region something else no less important happened: the citizens of Ecuador voted in a referendum to approve constitutional changes that would effectively bar Rafael Correa from running for president again. Correa was a strong ally and supporter of the Venezuelan regime.

This vote was approved with an overwhelming majority of 67%. This represents a major victory for democracy in the region. The referendum was supported by the current president Lenin Moreno, who once was Correa’s vice-President. The vote in Ecuador puts an end to “Correism” and effectively deprives the regional Venezuelan-led Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) of one of its most “valuable” allies.

In other words, the region by and large is turning against the anti-democratic forces. The U.S has a unique window of opportunity. However, the U.S should not act in ways that could make it appear hypocritical or unreliable.

President Trump’s remarks threatening to cut aid to countries where drugs are produced or trafficked contradicts Tillerson’s magnificent efforts. Friendly countries such as Peru, Colombia and Mexico are among those countries.

These countries deserve the benefit of the doubt and deserve to be treated as allies. Otherwise, how can we expect them to minimize their relations with China and Russia let alone support our efforts in Venezuela? The Monroe Doctrine-issued in 1823 and invoked not without nostalgia by Tillerson in a speech delivered previous to his departure for the region- determined that the Western Hemisphere is a natural area of American influence, originally against European intervention. Tillerson reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine not against Europe but against Chinese and Russian influence.

However, the nature of Chinese and Russian presence in Latin America will depend a lot on what we do. We are not in a position to forbid countries in the region to strengthen relations with these world powers. We have to gain their hearts and love. They way to do it is by being kind to them. After the painful rule of the authoritarian left in various countries in the region, America is more attractive to them because there are shared values of freedom and democracy between them and us. America is the power that guarantees these values. We should be sensitive. Mishandling relations with them could be painfully harmful. The modern Monroe Doctrine should be based on common goals not on threats.

Overall, Tillerson had a good trip. He needs to continue his good work. However, the job has only begun. A steady and coherent continuity is now needed.