The Venezuelan crisis has reached a boiling point just as the United States goes full military pressure to drive Nicolás Maduro from power. This approach comes at a time of increasing unease over U.S. intervention. Experts say that this type of intervention may very well throw the nation into a state of irreparable turmoil. Douglas Farah, an expert on Latin America, cautions that military action without a specific plan would be dangerous. He argues that the move would create great “chaos and instability” across the region.
For more than a year, allies of former President Donald Trump have intensified their campaign to oust Maduro. This would mark the first time the U.S. has deployed Armed Forces into the Caribbean waters. The USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, is operating right now off the coast of Saint Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The military’s Caribbean strikes have been deadly, including a recent hit in Jamaica that killed two civilians. In recent months, they have confiscated an oil tanker owned by the Venezuelan government.
Farah warns that ousting Maduro is not enough to address deeper woes that have come to define life in Venezuela. He argues that defeating Maduro would require tens of billions of dollars, troop deployments and lead to an occupation, if not fatalities. “You might have four different folks saying: ‘OK, now I’m in charge,’” he cautions, highlighting the risk of a power vacuum that could lead to rival factions vying for control.
María Corina Machado, leading Venezuelan opposition leader and recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, speaking in Oslo. She has indicated that a more limited purge of top Maduro officials will be required after his ousting. Farah cautions that a coup would likely leave an enormous power vacuum. In turn, this would almost certainly encourage competing, rival armed groups to violently compete for dominance over the entire country.
Machado has rejected concerns that Venezuela would spiral into violence similar to that of Syria’s civil war after Maduro’s downfall. Her conclusion that fears of a violent response should there be an unfavorable outcome are “completely unfounded.” Farah’s analysis certainly does. She argues that if the people’s movement becomes truly popular, the military will be forced into a position of having to defend itself and would react violently to the protests in the street, with massive bloodshed resulting.
The Venezuelan opposition is right to be hopeful for a negotiated solution to this crisis, but this road will only be taken through tough compromises. Farah believes that such negotiations often allow the world’s worst human rights violators to escape accountability. This might even include providing Maduro with safe passage out of the country. He underscores the complexity of such negotiations: “Negotiations are long and hard fought and require compromise,” he states, emphasizing their importance in promoting a transition.
With Maduro solidifying power for at least another 12 years, the road to a successful and united opposition starts now. Renewed refugee crises loom on the horizon. If conditions keep getting worse, countries like Colombia and Brazil may soon face a wave of Venezuelans fleeing the chaos. Miguel Pizarro, an opposition leader and member of the Venezuelan Parliament, violently opposes any such comparisons between a post-Maduro Venezuela and Iraq, Libya, or Haiti. As he boldly claims, those results are not preordained.
Farah, speaking at the White House. She is cautious to add that without serious planning, post-Maduro Venezuela might turn into “a drastic disaster that would last for a long time.” He can recall the U.S. government’s “war games” six years ago. These simulations examined various scenarios for a post-Maduro Venezuela. The implications of these simulations found that the transitions itself were very unpredictable, with no clear trajectories coming forth from potential worlds ahead.