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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS