WARNING: This post is long and somewhat meandering, as it gathers several strands of thought about the issue.
There has been some concern voiced about New Zealand’s refusal to take a side in the power contest now being waged in Venezuela, where the leader of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, has declared himself interim president in opposition to fraudulently re-elected Nicolas Maduro, the successor to Hugo Chavez in what is known as the “Boliviarian Revolution” that started in 1999. The Maduro administration is notoriously corrupt and incompetent and has driven Venezuela into the ground, to the point that millions are starving and more than 2.1 million have fled the oil-dependent country in the last two years (the largest refugee crisis in Latin American history). The reasons for this human-made disaster are many and will not be covered here. Instead, let’s start with the NZ reaction and proceed to how things might eventuate over the next weeks and months.
When first asked about US support for Guaido (the US recognised his presidency a few hours after he made his claim public) and whether New Zealand would follow suit, Prime Minister Arden said that NZ supported “neither side.” That sent the NZ political right into paroxysms of indignant fulmination, with politicians and commentators claiming that she supported Maduro, communism, evil-doers in general and people who kick their dogs. Not surprisingly, her ad-lib was followed shortly thereafter by a more measured comment by Foreign Minister Winston Peters that NZ does not choose between foreign political parties and contenders and prefers to allow them to settle differences on their own.
Coming after the PM’s comments (which reminded me of her “there are no undeclared Russian spies in NZ” remark in March 2018), Peterâ€™s tidying up was appropriate. Although the Maduro regime is odious, it is less repressive than many other authoritarian regimes that NZ recognises and trades with (its major flaws are grotesque corruption and incompetence). NZ also has a long-standing public commitment to the principle of non-intervention and support for peaceful constitutionally-driven political change. The Maduro regime is now being confronted by an externally-backed constitutional coup in the form of the Guaido challenge (and no one elected him to be anything other than an opposition National Assemblyman. He only assumed leadership of the National Assembly in December as part of a rotation-in-office deal with other opposition coalition parties). Guaido and his supporters are not necessarily democratic champions themselves and their promises to hold new elections in a timely fashion are vague at best, so immediate recognition of him as â€œpresidentâ€ is more an act of faith or cynicism rather than a demonstrable fact of his democratic inclination. In that context Peterâ€™s statement strikes a good diplomatic balance.
With some notable exceptions most of the Latin American governments supporting Guaido are right-leaning like that of Mauricio Macri of Argentina, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Sebastian Pinera in Chile, with the advanced democracies supporting his challenge also being governed by Right administrations (UK, Australia, France, Germany as well as semi-democratic Israel). Meanwhile, left-leaning democracies such as those of Bolivia and Uruguay support the Maduro government. So there appears to be an ideological bias at play in how some democracies are casting their lots on the matter. The majority of the global community have taken a stance akin to that of NZ.
The usual clustering of dictatorships and semi-democracies that are backing Maduro such as the Cuba, PRC, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria have hard-nosed geopolitical as well as ideological reasons for doing so. Cuba gets the majority of its oil from Bolivia at discounted prices and has propped up the Boliviarians with both civilian and security assistance. Russia has cultivated Venezuela as an anti-US bulwark with weapons sales and military aid. China has spent billions investing in Venezuelan infrastructure. Iran and Syria have both benefitted from the Boliviarian’s alliance with Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards. None of them may be particularly enamoured of Maduro but they have serious investment stakes in the game.
As for the NZ response, think of the PRC’s potential reaction to New Zealand siding with the US after its “choose a side” demands, particularly in light of the Huawei imbroglio. Think of the US response if it sides with Maduro. In other words, the diplomatic consequences of taking sides are not positive regardless of which side is chosen. That is why Peterâ€™s statement is judiciousâ€“it annoys no one.
In summary, NZ is correct to not choose sides in the Venezuelan crisis, both for principled as well as pragmatic reason
With regards to the crisis itself, the solution has to be internal rather than externally imposed. They key is for the militaryâ€“the 130,000 troop Army in particular since it will have to do the repressingâ€“to drop support for Maduro in favour of a transitional government that schedules elections in the near future (the Navy has a limited land presence and along with the the Air Force can only support or resist what the Army does, but neither can prevail on their own no matter which side is chosen). To this end, Guaido’s emissaries have been working hard to establish a dialogue with the armed forces, something that, at least with regard to the Venezuelan high command, so far has been rebuffed.
Venezuelan flag rank officers are Maduro cronies who are deeply corrupt and incapable of leading troops in battle. Instead, they have been siphoning off “tax” from the ministries and border commands that they control (which cover drug, people, petrol and arms smuggling routes). The ones that are the key to what happens next are field grade officers (Colonels, LTCs, Majors and Captains) and NCOs who command the enlisted soldiers with the guns. That means bridging the division between constitutionalists (those who swear an oath to protect the constitution no matter who is president) and nationalists who see themselves as saviours of the nation in a time of needâ€“but those include both pro- and anti-Maduro factions. The move involves mending horizontal (between service branches and ideological factions) and vertical (between ranks or military school graduating class) cleavages, something that often involves intra-institutional violence as a precursor to what follows.
In this type of scenario, the military is subject to what are known as â€œpushâ€ and â€œpullâ€ factors. The â€œpushâ€ factors are those internal to the military that compels them to intervene in politics. These can be a loss of combat readiness or military discipline and professionalism, overt politicisation of the officer corps, rampant corruption etc. All of these are present within the Venezuelan military.
â€œPullâ€ factors are external events or conditions that draw the armed forces out of the barracks and into politics. They include armed challenges to military monopoly over organised violence (say, by paramilitaries, guerrillas, criminal organizations and the like, all of which operate with some impunity in Venezuela), and what is known as civilian pleading. Civilian pleading refers to calls from civil society for the military to act. This includes appeals by business groups, unions, religious and community organizations as well as external actors such as Venezuelan exile communities and foreign governments and organisations such as the OAS.
The sense of compulsion is reinforced by the personal experiences of troops when not in uniform. Militaries do not exist in a vacuum and in fact are reflective, in their own way, of the society from which they are drawn. Venezuela has a volunteer military and many of its personnel return to their families and homes after a dayâ€™s work. So they are living the crisis both as uniformed personnel as well as citizens.
In short, the Venezuelan military is getting an earful from many sides and has internal, â€œcorporateâ€ reasons to act in order to preserve its position as the pre-eminent institution responsible for managing organised violence in that society. Whether it adopts an arbitrator or governing role once it does so remains to be seen, but it is now the primary determinant of the nation’s political future.
If the field ranking officers and NCOs abandon support for Maduro he is finished, although his loyalists in the Cuban-dominated intelligence and police/paramilitary services will resist the move. It is also likely that, barring massive defections, the 70,000-strong National Guard (which is the agency primarily responsible for domestic repression and which has gained a reputation for brutality) and 150,000 strong National Militia will continue to side with Maduro. The scene is then set for mass violence and prolonged resistance (remember that the Cubans have helped Maduro create thousand of small-scale neighbourhood militias that are trained to use guerrilla tactics against any superior force, foreign or domestic. Along with National Guard resistance that could protract the conflict and drag foreign forces into another long-term â€˜pacificationâ€ campaign).
The military could opt to simply lay down their weapons, but that is unlikely given the presence of loyalists in the ranks and the National Guard still loyal to Maduro. Or the military can unite around Maduro and ward off US interference by getting Guaido to back down on his presidential challenge, possibly in exchange for new elections and/or constitutional and political reforms. That is the most peaceful option but it does not solve the underlying economic and social problems or the issue of a potential US military intervention if Maduro remains in power (it is highly unlikely that any Latin American country will contribute troops to any US-led intervention force, although it is feasible that Colombia and Brazil might allow US forces to forward deploy and stage in their territories).
So the likely scenario is that Maduro is removed by force, be it threatened or actual. While inevitably bloody, a pro-Guaido military coup will be better than an external military intervention, where many erstwhile opponents of Maduro will rally against armed foreign interference, especially from the US. If it is revealed that Guaido and his supporters have been receiving advice, money and logistical help from the US, that could backfire hard on his military and civilian allies and increase as well as prolong the bloodshed.
In order to avoid civil war the military will have to be united in its support for one or the other presidential contender and willing to demonstrate its resolve. That is easier over the short term if the field officers and NCOs side with their superiors in defence of Maduro, but given the circumstances that is unlikely to hold over the longer-term and could lead to a direct confrontation with US forces should the Trump administration determine that it is expedient (say, as part of a declaration of “national emergency” that includes emergency funding of the border wall by Executive Order) to sacrifice lives in order to see him ousted (the annotation of “5000 troops–>Colombia” on John Bolton’s press briefing notes this past week may or may not be a real statement of intent but certainly signals that “all options are on the table,” even if they are not well thought out. After all, 5000 troops are not enough to control all Venezuelan territory and will have difficulty subduing militias, guerrilla groups and nearly 1 million strong volunteer military that even with defections and intra-service clashes will dwarf the invading force coming across a well defended land border. Which is to say, armed intervention by the US will involve a lot more than a brigade and a lot more than a land assault from Colombia).
It is telling that the person nominated to lead the US Venezuela task force is Elliot Abrams, of neocon Iran-Contra, death squads and the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez fame. His â€œskill setâ€ is a dark and narrow one, so his appointment pretty much reveals the foundation of the current US approach to the crisis. The irony is that Abrams was originally a â€œnever-Trumper,â€ who was initially blacklisted from any administration job. But with fellow neocon John Bolton as NSC advisor, the time for redemption is apparently at hand. It will be the Venezuelans who pay the price for that.
Foreign supporters of Maduro like to claim that US sanctions imposed on his government are a large part of why the country was crippled. This ignores the fact that the sanctions targeted Maduro administration officials and state-controlled firms suspected of money laundering and pilferage. The sanctions did not target economic activities connected to the provision of basic goods and services, nor did it target average citizens. The loss of basics such as food and medicines is not due to sanctions, but to the rampant thievery and incompetence of what now can only be called a kleptocracy as well as the response by the private sector to it.
On the other hand, the Venezuelan political opposition, when not in-fighting, have behaved less than honourably towards the Boliviarians even before Chavez began to tighten his grip after the 2002 coup–a coup that business elites, domestic political opponents and the US government were quick to support even before his arrest was made public (he was freed and launched a counter-coup just hours after being detained). Business elites have largely liquidated assets and decamped the country rather than accept increased taxes on individual wealth and corporate profits. Since 1999 political opponents have schemed and plotted with the ex-pat community and other Latin American rightwing groups to overthrow the Boliviarians. So there is much blame to spread around and choosing between Maduro and Guaido will not necessarily solve the underlying fundamentals of the national decline.
Let us be clear on a key point: if Maduro and his associates had one shred of decency and honour they would have resigned rather than rig last year’s election. They have managed to squander Chavez’s already diminished legacy, allied themselves with some rather unsavoury foreign actors, alienated most of their regional counterparts and overseen the collapse of what once was a prosperous country. Some of that may be due to the so-called “oil curse,” where countries dependent on fossil fuel exports almost inevitably succumb to authoritarianism and the vicissitudes of commodity booms and busts (as has happened in Venezuela). But the blame for what Gramsci would call an organic crisis of the Venezuelan state lies squarely on the shoulders of Boliviarians, not imperialists and domestic reactionaries. The extent of their perfidy and ineptitude is outlined here.
Guaido is believed to have offered Maduro and his associates (including the military leadership) amnesty for their crimes in exchange for abdication. There are reports that he has offered safe passage into exile for regime leaders along with much of their ill-begotten assets. There are rumours of secret talks between his representatives and field rank officers. His supporters have gathered outside military bases clamouring for the troops to lay down their arms or join with the opposition. It is clear to everyone that the military holds the key to what happens next, but the question remains open as to whether the military will choose a side, fracture or simply remain neutral while the civilian actors negotiate or fight for political control. So far the military leadership remains loyal to Maduro, but defections in the ranks are commonplace (including the military attache to Washington, who defected and requested asylum).
It is unlikely that Guaido would have made his move spontaneously or without the encouragement and support of the US. It is very likely that US representatives worked with him in the weeks leading to his challenge for power, and it would not be surprising if the US has provided logistical and material assistance to his campaign. It is also likely that discrete overtures have been made to military officers by the US, if nothing else then to ascertain the mood of the troops. The emergence of a right-leaning political bloc in Latin America provided Guaido with a favourable geopolitical context in which to make his move (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica all have right-leaning governments at the moment). This has translated into Organisation of American States (OAS) support for Guaido, something that breaks with a long-standing tradition of promoting non-interference in the sovereign affairs of its members.
The bottom line is that Maduro’s position is increasingly untenable but Guaido is somewhat tainted by his association with the US. The solution to the impasse rests in the hands of middle and junior rank Army officers and NCOs, who must choose to defend Maduro or opt to support an election-based political transition to a post-Bolivarian regime (that may or may not be led by Guaido or Maduro if the elections are genuinely free and fair). That requires a public move one way or the other from within the Army as a signal of intent. There is likely to be violence involved with either choice, both within and between armed service branches, paramilitary organisations, intelligence agencies and guerrilla cadres connected to civil society and political parties. But that will be the lesser price to pay if the alternative is US military intervention.
In the meantime the international community can do its part by marshalling humanitarian assistance for the Venezuelan people. The UN and OAS can lead those efforts and the contending political factions can broker an interim agreement on priority needs and the means and methods of conveying that aid, something that could lessen factional and partisan tensions and set the stage for more substantive negotiations on the terms and conditions for the political transition that, one way or another, is an inevitable part of Venezuela’s future.
Very interesting analysis. What is the training cooperation history of the Venezuelan field grade officers? I recall reading that when Egypt was going through similar turmoil US mid level military were encouraged to reach out to their peers in Egypt to encourage them to “do the right thing”.
That may have been the US in 2002 but we are 17 years on. Is it now going to be mainly Cuban.
Whilst understanding why NZ declines to take a side I am not entirely clear why that is “principled”. Venezuela has been ruined by politicians following the failed ideology of socialism. The corruption and kleptocracy followed. Your thoughts on Venezuela as yet another example of why that ideology does not work would be welcome. I hope you are not going to go all Corbynite.
” I am not entirely clear why that is â€œprincipledâ€. ”
Non-intervention is a principle.
You are right about the peer to peer contacts and shifting influence of foreign military advisors. After Chavez assumed office he diminished ties with the US military and substituted Cuban advisors using Russian equipment (although there still is a large US, French, Belgian and German inventory in the Venezuelan armed forces). Maduro has increased the ties with the Russians (you may recall the visit by Russian TU-160 “Blackjack” bombers last December). So it is safe to assume that what is taught in the way of war-fighting doctrine, strategy and tactics as well as unit organisation, logistics, training and deployment has a strong Cuban-Russian influence. However, much of that has been channeled into a counter-revolutionary domestic war-fighting orientation, which even if it has a strong defensive component against foreign invaders does not translate into effective state-against-state fighting capabilities.
Moreover, the crisis has taken its toll on Venezuelan military readiness. It exercises far less than it used to (although it has picked up the tempo of training operations in the last 2 years), has many shortages of spare parts and trained personnel to service its weapons systems (hence the need for Cubans and Russians to cover these gaps) and certainly has little recent real experience with anything other than repressing its own people (in a limited capacity, since most of that falls to the Police and National Guard). Most of what it does is prepare for counter-insurgency operations and conflict with Colombia (which would be one-sided because the Colombians are the most experienced and hardened fighting force in South America).
In short, it is an open question as to whether the the Venezuelan armed forces can effectively fight another military. But it is pretty clear that if and when they do so they will likely resort to Cuban-style irregular warfare and Russian-style conventional land, air and sea warfare.
Great info and analysis.
I wonder how much the Latin support for Guaido is due to pragmatism rather than ideology though – given the mass exodus of Venezuelans to neighboring countries in recent years?
That is a big part of the calculation on the part of Venezuela’s neighbours. They have to stop the source of the refugee outflow rather than continue to deal with the effects of it in their respective countries. There is only so much that Colombia, Ecuador and Peru can do to accomodate the thousands that have headed their way (as you well know), but when you have the Brazilian military trying to seal Venezuelan border crossing points and the expat Venezuelan community in Argentina increasing 20 fold in a year, then it is clear that the answer to the migrant problem lies at the source, not the destination. Siding against Maduro opens space for them to negotiate repatriation deals with his successor. But first things first….
The attached link may be of interest
Parts of it compliment your opinions of the Venezuelan military
Thank you for that thoughtful analysis. While I disagree with our Government for sitting on the fence while the National Guard turn their guns on the people you are 100% correct in saying the key player is the military (separate from the National Guard). Will one of their ‘young turk’ officers seize the moment?
One thing for sure … a country with 80,000% hyper inflation ain’t going anywhere.
“Maduro said the all-powerful government-controlled Constituent Assembly would debate calling earlier elections for the National Assembly.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1081671/venezuela-crisis-early-elections-nicolas-maduro-juan-guaido-latest
The National Assembly is the Venezuelan parliament: “Under the new Bolivarian 1999 Constitution, the legislative branch of Government in Venezuela is represented by a unicameral National Assembly. The Assembly is made up of 165 deputies (diputados), who are elected by “universal, direct, personal, and secret” vote on a national party-list proportional representation system. In addition, three deputies are returned on a state-by-state basis, and three seats are reserved for representatives of Venezuela’s indigenous peoples.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(Venezuela)]
“In the midst of the ongoing constitutional crisis, a different body, the Constituent Assembly was elected in 2017, with the intent of re-writing the Venezuelan Constitution. From that point forward, the two legislatures have operated in parallel, with the National Assembly forming the primary opposition to president NicolÃ¡s Maduro, and with the Constituent Assembly being his primary supporters.”
“GuaidÃ³ was elected President of the National Assembly of Venezuela in December 2018, and was sworn in on 5 January 2019.” Kiwis need to grasp that authenticity is established by democratic process and mandate.
“Article 233 of the Constitution of Venezuela provides that, “when the president-elect is absolutely absent before taking office, a new election shall take place […] and until the president is elected and takes office, the interim president shall be the president of the National Assembly”. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Guaid%C3%B3]
“After what he and others described as the “illegitimate” inauguration of Maduro on 10 January 2019, GuaidÃ³ said that he would challenge Maduro’s claim to the presidency,the National Assembly announced GuaidÃ³ had assumed the powers and duties of president, and they would continue to plan to remove Maduro.”
Thus the authentic parliament used article 233 of the constitution to elect Guaido, making him interim president on a constitutional basis. We can now see that the assertion that he is an appointee of US neocons is fake. I share the saker’s distaste, haven’t forgotten the Reaganaut’s association with death squads in the region in the eighties, but he’s waving a straw man at us.
Maduro’s stalinist project has been surprisingly successful: capture of the Supreme Court via replacing opponents within, for instance. However his creation of the Constituent Assembly as a parallel parliament is a sham. Purported removal of state authority from the real parliament is defacto accomplished, yet unconstitutional. Free and fair elections seems the requisite solution to this problem – provided that the people do not remain split! All must realise authentic democracy must lead to defeat of the stalinist strategy of state power capture by a cabal, and elimination of corruption as state culture.
As we see from the headline cited at the top of this commentary, Maduro hasn’t yet learnt his lesson. He’s trying to organise another fake election to replace opponents in the National Assembly.
Pushing out Maduro via external regime change would be the easy part. If Juan Guaido breaks his promises and turns out to be Fulgencio Batista v2.0, there’ll likely be a Chavez/Maduro loyalist doing a Fidel Castro in response. And the cycle of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss, won’t get fooled again” rinses & repeats. My personal views on Communism are put best by JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.”
The ideal but most difficult way forward would be a “Venezuelan Spring” where the public muster up the courage to force Maduro into exile, and the same goes for Iran.
” a â€œVenezuelan Springâ€ where the public muster up the courage to force Maduro into exile”
Guiado’s supporters would argue this is exactly what’s happening.
“Guiadoâ€™s supporters would argue this is exactly whatâ€™s happening.”
So long as he can do a Carnation Revolution or Velvet Revolution and stay the course, all good. As I earlier mentioned, the worst thing Guaido can do is succumb to paranoia and temptation, and pull a Batista, Franco or Salazar.
I don’t disagree, but I am surprised you have such a (relatively) optimistic view of the Venezuelan opposition.
Pingback: Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Is Israel Democratic?