AI
Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:59:29 PM
U.S. Intervention Could Be Maduro’s Lifeline
"Here we go again!
'This Is Very Dangerous': Trump Administration Seizes Venezuela Oil Assets, Renews Threat of Military Action If Maduro Stays
"The problem here is that these efforts by the United States to change other countries' governments often lead to catastrophe.""
Attempts at regime change have backfired on Washington before.
By Lindsey A. O'Rourke | January 30, 2019, 12:31 PM
.. with all links ..
Members of the Bolivarian National Police (PNB) line up to guard the entrance of Venezuela's Central
University (UCV) in Caracas, during a protest against the government of President Nicolas
Maduro on January 30, 2019. (LUIS ROBAYO/AFP/Getty Images)
Once one of Latin America’s longest-running democracies and the country with the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, Venezuela has been driven to the brink of collapse by years of economic mismanagement, rampant corruption, and mounting authoritarianism by President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Starvation and malnutrition are now widespread. Years of recklessly printing money have rendered Venezuela’s currency practically worthless. Hyperinflation reached 1.3 million percent last year and could reach 10 million percent this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. More than 3 million Venezuelans have already fled the country in Latin America’s largest-ever refugee exodus, sparking humanitarian crises in neighboring states. On Jan. 23, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that “all options are on the table” if Maduro used force to put down the protests that have swept the country in the last few weeks.
But the prospects for a change of regime in Venezuela look dicey, especially one driven from D.C. While two dozen countries have followed the United States’ lead and recognized the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president, there are good reasons to be wary of Washington’s latest moves. The U.S. history of attempted regime change in the region and Trump’s loose language are both working against an opposition that faces a still formidable foe in Maduro’s regime.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Guaidó coordinated his announcement with the United States beforehand as part of a concerted effort by the United States and its Latin American allies to force Maduro out. The Trump administration appears to have been debating regime change in Caracas for some time. In August 2017, Trump surprised the Pentagon .. https://thehill.com/policy/international/346278-pentagon-weve-received-no-new-orders-on-venezuela-after-trump-remarks .. by announcing that a “military option” was on the table for Venezuela—a claim he allegedly repeated .. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/02/donald-trump-foreign-policy-analysis-dangerous-216202 .. to several alarmed South American leaders a few weeks later. In September 2018, the New York Times .. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela-military-coup.html .. reported that Trump administration officials had met with disgruntled Venezuelan military officers multiple times to discuss the possibility of a coup. Although Washington ultimately decided not to support the coup plotters, Maduro jumped on the story and continues to blame .. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/americas/venezuela-maduro-us-coup-accusation/index.html .. the United States for his country’s political upheaval.
This highlights the dangers of the Trump administration’s loose language when it comes to regime change. While administration officials may see regime change as a morally sound response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding within Venezuela, many in the region are skeptical of Washington’s intentions—for understandable reasons.
When Maduro warned his supporters last week “don’t trust the gringos .. https://www.apnews.com/7d3d2ed7d5ae45dcad96baf0286cbfa6 ,” he evoked a long history of U.S. meddling in Latin America dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Gunboat diplomacy drove U.S. policy in the early 20th century. Indeed, as the historian Greg Grandin once summarized .. https://books.google.com/books?id=7OX5QaLkH-YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=gunboats&f=false , “by 1930, Washington had sent gunboats into Latin American ports over six thousand times, invaded Cuba, Mexico (again), Guatemala, and Honduras, fought protracted guerilla wars in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Haiti, annexed Puerto Rico, and taken a piece of Colombia to create both the Panamanian nation and the Panama Canal.”
[INSERT: That's not including corporate pressure/action and American sanctions. Or the effect of Saudi Arabia oil gushes
to lower the price of oil. Yet still many say the U.S.A., and others bear no responsibility at all for the situation in the region.]
The academic literature on regime changes paints an overwhelmingly negative picture of the prospects of success: Studies have shown that foreign-imposed regime changes do not improve political or economic relations between the intervening and target states. They rarely lead to democracy .. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/ISEC_a_00117 , and, regardless of whether they are conducted covertly or overtly, they increase the likelihood that the target state will experience a civil war.
Yet however ineffective a tool regime change has been, it’s one that the United States has often resorted to. Following World War II, covert action replaced gunboat diplomacy as its preferred form of intervention in the hemisphere. For instance, my recently released book, Covert Regime Change ... http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140107479480 : America’s Secret Cold War, documents 18 U.S.-backed covert regime change attempts in Latin America during the Cold War—10 of which saw U.S.-backed forces assume power. Because Washington’s role in most of these missions was quickly exposed, many of these covert operations have become lasting symbols of U.S. imperialism in the region: the 1954 Guatemalan coup that ousted the democratically elected leader Jacobo Árbenz, the 1961 failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the 1964 Brazilian military coup, the 1973 Chilean coup that gave rise to Augusto Pinochet’s military regime, and the Reagan administration’s support for anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua.
In April 2002, Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chávez, was ousted for two days in a military coup before regaining power. Afterward, Chávez accused the United States of playing a role in the coup and later claimed that the United States was trying to assassinate him. (Declassified U.S. government documents later revealed that while the CIA was aware of the 2002 coup beforehand, Washington did not back the coup and instead issued “repeated warnings that the United States will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez.”) Nevertheless, Chávez continued to use the allegations of U.S. meddling as to paint himself a socialist folk hero and undermine his political opponents for the rest of his presidency.
Given this history, many Venezuelans remain suspicious of Washington’s motives, and only 36 percent hold a favorable view of the United States. Consequently, the Trump administration’s recognition of Guaidó is likely a double-edged sword: While it may increase his stature in the eyes of U.S. allies, it is also likely to undermine his legitimacy among Venezuelans wary of U.S. meddling.
There are other practical obstacles in the way of Washington’s hopes. To begin with, recognizing Guaidó is unlikely to bring meaningful change on its own. It is hardly news that the United States wants Maduro out, so backing Guaidó is unlikely to change the existing balance-of-power calculations of Venezuela’s key domestic players.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/30/u-s-intervention-could-be-maduros-lifeline/
See also:
New Trump appointee is an Iran-Contra convict who tried to cover up massacre of 1,000 civilians
The Trump administration has appointed a new U.S. special envoy for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146434580
Russia Embarrasses Trump With Leak Of Secret Talk At G-20 Meeting
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146462355
"Here we go again!
'This Is Very Dangerous': Trump Administration Seizes Venezuela Oil Assets, Renews Threat of Military Action If Maduro Stays
"The problem here is that these efforts by the United States to change other countries' governments often lead to catastrophe.""
Attempts at regime change have backfired on Washington before.
By Lindsey A. O'Rourke | January 30, 2019, 12:31 PM
.. with all links ..
Members of the Bolivarian National Police (PNB) line up to guard the entrance of Venezuela's Central
University (UCV) in Caracas, during a protest against the government of President Nicolas
Maduro on January 30, 2019. (LUIS ROBAYO/AFP/Getty Images)
Once one of Latin America’s longest-running democracies and the country with the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, Venezuela has been driven to the brink of collapse by years of economic mismanagement, rampant corruption, and mounting authoritarianism by President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Starvation and malnutrition are now widespread. Years of recklessly printing money have rendered Venezuela’s currency practically worthless. Hyperinflation reached 1.3 million percent last year and could reach 10 million percent this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. More than 3 million Venezuelans have already fled the country in Latin America’s largest-ever refugee exodus, sparking humanitarian crises in neighboring states. On Jan. 23, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that “all options are on the table” if Maduro used force to put down the protests that have swept the country in the last few weeks.
But the prospects for a change of regime in Venezuela look dicey, especially one driven from D.C. While two dozen countries have followed the United States’ lead and recognized the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president, there are good reasons to be wary of Washington’s latest moves. The U.S. history of attempted regime change in the region and Trump’s loose language are both working against an opposition that faces a still formidable foe in Maduro’s regime.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Guaidó coordinated his announcement with the United States beforehand as part of a concerted effort by the United States and its Latin American allies to force Maduro out. The Trump administration appears to have been debating regime change in Caracas for some time. In August 2017, Trump surprised the Pentagon .. https://thehill.com/policy/international/346278-pentagon-weve-received-no-new-orders-on-venezuela-after-trump-remarks .. by announcing that a “military option” was on the table for Venezuela—a claim he allegedly repeated .. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/02/donald-trump-foreign-policy-analysis-dangerous-216202 .. to several alarmed South American leaders a few weeks later. In September 2018, the New York Times .. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela-military-coup.html .. reported that Trump administration officials had met with disgruntled Venezuelan military officers multiple times to discuss the possibility of a coup. Although Washington ultimately decided not to support the coup plotters, Maduro jumped on the story and continues to blame .. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/27/americas/venezuela-maduro-us-coup-accusation/index.html .. the United States for his country’s political upheaval.
This highlights the dangers of the Trump administration’s loose language when it comes to regime change. While administration officials may see regime change as a morally sound response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding within Venezuela, many in the region are skeptical of Washington’s intentions—for understandable reasons.
When Maduro warned his supporters last week “don’t trust the gringos .. https://www.apnews.com/7d3d2ed7d5ae45dcad96baf0286cbfa6 ,” he evoked a long history of U.S. meddling in Latin America dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Gunboat diplomacy drove U.S. policy in the early 20th century. Indeed, as the historian Greg Grandin once summarized .. https://books.google.com/books?id=7OX5QaLkH-YC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=gunboats&f=false , “by 1930, Washington had sent gunboats into Latin American ports over six thousand times, invaded Cuba, Mexico (again), Guatemala, and Honduras, fought protracted guerilla wars in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Haiti, annexed Puerto Rico, and taken a piece of Colombia to create both the Panamanian nation and the Panama Canal.”
[INSERT: That's not including corporate pressure/action and American sanctions. Or the effect of Saudi Arabia oil gushes
to lower the price of oil. Yet still many say the U.S.A., and others bear no responsibility at all for the situation in the region.]
The academic literature on regime changes paints an overwhelmingly negative picture of the prospects of success: Studies have shown that foreign-imposed regime changes do not improve political or economic relations between the intervening and target states. They rarely lead to democracy .. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/ISEC_a_00117 , and, regardless of whether they are conducted covertly or overtly, they increase the likelihood that the target state will experience a civil war.
Yet however ineffective a tool regime change has been, it’s one that the United States has often resorted to. Following World War II, covert action replaced gunboat diplomacy as its preferred form of intervention in the hemisphere. For instance, my recently released book, Covert Regime Change ... http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140107479480 : America’s Secret Cold War, documents 18 U.S.-backed covert regime change attempts in Latin America during the Cold War—10 of which saw U.S.-backed forces assume power. Because Washington’s role in most of these missions was quickly exposed, many of these covert operations have become lasting symbols of U.S. imperialism in the region: the 1954 Guatemalan coup that ousted the democratically elected leader Jacobo Árbenz, the 1961 failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the 1964 Brazilian military coup, the 1973 Chilean coup that gave rise to Augusto Pinochet’s military regime, and the Reagan administration’s support for anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua.
In April 2002, Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chávez, was ousted for two days in a military coup before regaining power. Afterward, Chávez accused the United States of playing a role in the coup and later claimed that the United States was trying to assassinate him. (Declassified U.S. government documents later revealed that while the CIA was aware of the 2002 coup beforehand, Washington did not back the coup and instead issued “repeated warnings that the United States will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez.”) Nevertheless, Chávez continued to use the allegations of U.S. meddling as to paint himself a socialist folk hero and undermine his political opponents for the rest of his presidency.
Given this history, many Venezuelans remain suspicious of Washington’s motives, and only 36 percent hold a favorable view of the United States. Consequently, the Trump administration’s recognition of Guaidó is likely a double-edged sword: While it may increase his stature in the eyes of U.S. allies, it is also likely to undermine his legitimacy among Venezuelans wary of U.S. meddling.
There are other practical obstacles in the way of Washington’s hopes. To begin with, recognizing Guaidó is unlikely to bring meaningful change on its own. It is hardly news that the United States wants Maduro out, so backing Guaidó is unlikely to change the existing balance-of-power calculations of Venezuela’s key domestic players.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/30/u-s-intervention-could-be-maduros-lifeline/
See also:
New Trump appointee is an Iran-Contra convict who tried to cover up massacre of 1,000 civilians
The Trump administration has appointed a new U.S. special envoy for Venezuela, Elliot Abrams
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146434580
Russia Embarrasses Trump With Leak Of Secret Talk At G-20 Meeting
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146462355
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
