One of the remarkable aspects of dictatorial governments these days is how many of them maintain their hold on power using foreign mercenaries. It is true of Iran with the basidji. And it is true in Venezuela where the Cuban government is providing thousands of physicians, teachers, and security forces in exchange for oil, a mutually beneficial arrangement. In her Wall Street Journal column Mary Anastasia O’Grady explains her plan for overthrowing the Maduro government:
Things will go from bad to worse for Havana if Mr. Guaidó is allowed to hold elections. This is why the Cubans are ruthlessly cracking down on the opposition while making the absurd proposal to the Lima Group that Havana ought to mediate a compromise solution. As if the fox ought to decide the fate of the hens. Defectors repeatedly testify that Cubans are behind the Venezuelan police state. It’s why the U.S. and its allies must shift their focus to Havana.
The Trump administration has been adding sanctions against the Cuban regime. Ships that carry oil from Venezuela to Cuba can no longer enter U.S. ports; Americans can now sue in U.S. courts over property confiscated by Cuba; and the ceiling on remittances from the U.S. has been reduced. Havana is feeling some heat. But it isn’t enough.
To persuade Cuba to exit Venezuela, the price of staying has to be higher than any benefits it still receives. That’s a hemispheric project, and it’s the best way to liberate Venezuela from tyranny.
IMO U. S. efforts would be better utilized enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and preventing intervention from outside the hemisphere to intervene to save the Maduro government.
The Cuban government has problems of its own which their symbiotic relationship with Venezuela will not help them to solve. The entire arrangement may well be on the brink of collapse.
The Monroe Doctrine is not only illegal under international law, it is an archaic, 19th Century, claim to the right to dominate and control our neighbors. It is classic 19th Century colonialism. The FDR codicil, which claimed the right to intervene in the internal affairs of our neighbors is an elaboration of the Doctrine and a further claim to colonial powers over our neighbors.
The US is widely despised by Latin Americans because of the Monroe Doctrine, the FDR codicil, and the numerous interventions the US has conducted, from the Mexican-American War and subsequent interventions there, the partition of Columbia for the Canal, the all-too-many incursions into Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Granada… virtually everyone to the south.
The invocation of the Doctrine/codicil in the Venezuelan case is criminal. Our attempted coup d’etat failed because Maduro actually has majority support in Venezuela, 57% in a recent poll.
The only way to remove him is to invade and conquer Venezuela. This would be greatly appreciated by Russia and China, as it would tie us down in an interminable guerrilla war that we could not win. It would also secure good oil prices for Russia.
An all-to-convenient attack on oil tankers in the UAE took place over the weekend. This is likely to be a false-flag operation intended to justify bombing raids on Iran. A major war is struggling to be born in the Middle East. We will lose that one, too.
I suggested that in a recent post. Yet another of the many ways in which our media have failed us is their failure to take note of that.
I think bob has it mostly correct. What I have seen covered by MSM sites has pointed out that Maduro still has majority support. However, as always, they have to make sure that Trump and co get most of the coverage so we are left with the impression that Maduro is unpopular and we should invade. (Years of embargo and sanctions against Cuba and this time it will work? What is the WSJ drinking? Shouldn’t they at least present some rationale about what is different this time?)
Steve
There is nothing illegal about negative reciprocity which is what I have in mind.
Rhetorically – does the 57% support include the 10% that are refugees due to hunger? Hunger tends to wipe out any partisan fervor.
Maduro could be described many ways, feared, inept, authoritarian — but “popular” would be one of the least fitting.
By the standard that Maduro hasn’t been overthrown, Stalin was popular too.
My thinking is “physician, do no harm”. Even if a regime is catastrophic for a country, is not sufficient proof that US intervention will improve the situation. I’m even open to a debate on whether allowing Chinese / Russian intervention in Venezuela if it alleviates suffering — I am skeptical the Chinese / Russian’s will get much return on their investments.
Or it could be that those opposed to the Maduro government have left, leaving more of those who support it.
“To persuade Cuba to exit Venezuela, the price of staying has to be higher than any benefits it still receives. That’s a hemispheric project, and it’s the best way to liberate Venezuela from tyranny.”
Why should we care? If Cuba and Venezuela want to dance themselves into economic oblivion, why should we stop them?
That’s certainly my view. Perhaps I did not express it forcefully enough in the body of the post. I think that watchful waiting is a pretty good strategy at this point.
However, I also don’t think that at this point people from either Cuba or Venezuela should have any claim to refugee status on H. L. Mencken democracy grounds (“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”) Said another way I think it’s intellectually incoherent to think that the Venezuelan people have a right to self-determination and, when they exercise it, we have an obligation to indemnify them against the consequences of their own folly.
That’s the wrong axis to think about those who left.
For Maduro, the refugee crisis is a feature, not a bug.
As Machiavelli observed; Maduro doesn’t care about popularity. He just wants a docile population.
If you have the strength / organization / determination to leave the country — you are dangerous to Maduro even if you are pro-regime; for you can always turn those abilities to organize against him.
It is about getting rid of anyone who could conceivably organize against him.
Just want to remind, Venezuelan voters were unhappy in 1998, and turned to Hugo Chávez . They’re unhappy today, but why should it surprise that they don’t welcome Guiado to save them.
If you’re going to have a Capitalist Democracy, it had better deliver well enough for most voters to accept.
And as for foreign mercenaries, isn’t that the role WE fill in Iraq?
“And as for foreign mercenaries, isn’t that the role WE fill in Iraq?”
No. Mercenaries get paid. Instead, we pay in money and lives for the role we play.
Steve
Foreign mercenaries propping up dictators isn’t a recent phenomenon, it’s been a fact of history going back thousands of years. To give a few examples, consdier the Swiss Guard of the French Kings (and the Popes); the Janissaries of Ottoman Empire (tribute from Christian vassal kingdoms forcibly converted to Islam), the slave German Guard of the Roman Emperors, and so on. Foreign troops, especially those isolated amongst a hostile population who know they will almost certainly die if their tyrannical patron is slain, of course will fight to the death to maintain his power (as well as their lives). The fiercest defenders of Berlin against the Soviets were the foreign SS troops.