I first met Nicolas Maduro about 15 years ago, when he was vice president of Venezuela — a lackey of the strongman Hugo Chavez — and I was commander of US Southern Command. We met at a conference on security in the Western Hemisphere, and his disdain for the US was clear, ignoring my attempts to make civil conversation.
Those were heady days for Venezuela, with oil at more than US$100 a barrel, and lots of support for Chavez from Cuba and Russia to quell internal dissent.
Around an elegant hotel swimming pool, Maduro, a large, domineering personality in a white tropical suit, held court with the leaders of other leftist regimes happy to cozy up to him. Those petrodollars were fueling “Chavismo,” a socialist-nationalist movement centered on the cult of Chavez, a failed military officer who spent freely to support left-wing regimes in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and various Caribbean islands.
It was clear to me then that economically, Venezuela was going to eventually run out of oil money — either through massive internal corruption, a fall in global prices or both.
When Chavez died in 2013, Maduro — a former bus driver — took power and he is now showing far he will go keep it.
On July 28, Venezuelans went to the polls in a presidential election. According to the government, Maduro was victorious with 51 percent of the vote, defeating top challenger Edmundo Gonzalez, who supposedly garnered 44 percent.
However, there are credible challenges to the election’s legitimacy by the Venezuelan public and many governments around the hemisphere and in Europe. Exit polls showed the opposition with double-digit leads across country.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US has “serious concerns that the result announced does not reflect the will or the votes of the Venezuelan people.”
Even Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the leftist president of Brazil who has long been friendly with the Venezuelan regime, called for “the impartial verification of the results.”
There have been widespread, massive street protests this week, of the sort that almost toppled Maduro in 2015. The regime has struck back with brutal force, killing at least seven protesters and arresting scores of others.
The people of Venezuela deserve not only an honest election, but also the chance to arrest the economic and societal free fall of their nation.
Venezuela is a tragic story of an oil-rich country — it has the largest proven reserves in the world — that has experienced a prolonged failure of leadership since Chavez took power in 1999.
As a result of the disastrous Chavez-Maduro economic policies, innate corruption and fundamental mismanagement of the national oil company, PDVSA, the country has had a 70 percent contraction in its economy over the past decade. It is the sort of economic disaster normally seen in nations in the throes of war.
The economic chaos has caused more than 7 million Venezuelans to depart the country, from a base population of about 35 million. While most escaped initially to Colombia and Brazil primarily, many are making the long and dangerous trek to the southern border of the US in search of a better life.
The US has vacillated in its Venezuela policy. While former US president Donald Trump’s administration came close to pushing Maduro out of power and imposed onerous sanctions, US President Joe Biden’s team tried a different approach. Biden initially eased sanctions in exchange for assurances that the Venezuelan elections would be free and fair, but Maduro quickly barred the popular leader of the opposition, Maria Corina Machado, from running.
And now we have what seems like clear election manipulation.
For the US and other democracies, it is time to return to a maximum-pressure strategy. That means increasing sanctions on the regime’s leaders and on oil exports; making public any evidence of stolen votes — to include declassifying US intelligence if necessary — encouraging the opposition to continue nonviolent street protests, using the lessons of the color revolutions that overthrew corrupt governments in Europe and Asia, and building support within the Organization of American States to punish Maduro.
Washington should also work individually with countries willing coordinate the pressure campaign, such as Argentina and Canada.
Finally, the US should ensure there is an exit ramp for Maduro and his senior team — probably to haciendas in Cuba or dachas in Russia. Giving them an out could produce less violence than an outright coup.
There is a Color Revolution precedent here: Ousted former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych ended up in exile in Russia in 2014.
Maduro will get some support from other leftist governments in the region, and Cuba and Russia will be offering plenty of assistance, but outside aid to the regime cannot overcome the complete failure of the country under Maduro.
It is time for him to go and the US should do everything to ease him toward the exit.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Stavridis is also vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is on the boards of Fortinet and Ankura Consulting Group and has advised Shield Capital, a firm that invests in the cybersecurity sector. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS