There are still alternatives in Venezuela

Alejandro Velasco is an badociate professor of Latin American history at the University of New York and author of "Rising Neighborhood: Urban People's Politics and Modern Venezuela Construction".

An African proverb aptly describes Venezuela's growing concern over a geopolitical confrontation of world powers: "When elephants fight, it's the grbad that suffers".

As in many power struggles, Venezuela is the booty of a bigger price. For the United States, this represents an opportunity to control the agenda in the region, to marginalize Russia's influence and to ensure that China does not progress further. In a fight between elephants, it is the Venezuelans who lose.

However, Venezuelans have already lost too much. For years, they suffered from a plummeting economy and a chaotic government. The magnitude of the crisis is enormous: an inflation rate higher than a million dollars, a historic economic contraction, the collapse of oil production and the exodus of more than three millions of people. Today, the risk is that if political concerns leave out the daily problems of Venezuelans, the already extreme situation may worsen. In seeking an abrupt regime change all or nothing against Nicolás Maduro and in favor of the leader of the opposition, Juan Guaidó, the United States turned a regional crisis into a struggle of the world powers. For now?

Some say it's because of oil. Venezuela is one of the countries with the most proven crude oil reserves in the world and is closer to the United States than most other major suppliers. Marco Rubio, a Florida state senator in the United States, and John Bolton, a national security adviser to President Donald Trump, boasted that the Guaidó presidency would give more money to corporations American oil companies.

But even at the height of the tension between the two countries, when Hugo Chávez was president of Venezuela, oil deliveries were stopped in the direction of the United States. Not now. Companies such as Chevron and Halliburton continue to operate in the country. Before last week, sanctions were announced against Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state oil company, 8 dollars out of 10 that Venezuela received for oil sales came from the United States. The reality is that Venezuela depends on the United States much more than the United States of Venezuela.

Some say democracy has pushed Trump's government to intervene, but when Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández stole the elections in 2017, the United States supported him. Similarly, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tacitly supported Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales when he canceled CICIG – the UN's anti-corruption commission – an action deemed undemocratic by much of the world. In addition, anyone who claims to promote democracy and human rights would condemn the appointment of Elliott Abrams as a special envoy to Venezuela. His involvement in covert operations and his support for death squads in Central America in the 1980s has been widely documented.

If it is neither oil nor democracy, what motivates the disproportionate pressure of the American government to overthrow Chavismo and at what price for Venezuela and Latin America? ? For the United States, a regime change in Venezuela means a renewed leadership on its "backyard", as described by then Secretary of State John Kerry in Latin America in 2013, after almost twenty years of marginalization.

Chávez took office as president for the first time on February 2, 1999. He became president partly because of the promise to reverse the austerity measures imposed by the United States, in addition to the privatization and privatization policies. free trade that caused inequality and poverty. to millions of people throughout the region. In highlighting the suffering of the people, Chávez paved the way for a new generation of leaders in the region willing to demand greater political independence from the United States.

When leftist governments came to power throughout Latin America, they took advantage of the rebound in commodity prices to spread wealth and reduce poverty. They also formed strategic alliances to counter the US's influence on hemispheric affairs: they strengthened their diplomatic relations and encouraged significant investments with China and Russia, which were then on the rise. When Brazil helped to sabotage the Free Trade Area of ​​the Americas (FTAA) in 2005, it became clear that the era of American dominance over the region was over. Washington had lost its ability to set the agenda.

However, the tide has returned. Corruption, mismanagement and the exhaustion of left-wing governments have resulted in governments more aligned with US trade policy and political interests. In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, new leaders are reversing the pink tide policy that separated the region from US influence and directed it towards the United States. other markets and alliances.

The United States has not conceived of this change, but is ready to take the reins. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that for some time Trump's government officials have been targeting Cuba and seeking to stem the progress of China and Russia in the region. The regime change in Venezuela would achieve both goals.

It is in Venezuela that Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America has been strongest, in the form of billions of dollars in cash, credits or sales, especially weapons and technology. And Cuba depends on Venezuela's services and oil to support US sanctions. But the United States would also win a symbolic victory: it was in Venezuela that regional change began two decades ago, reducing its influence.

For the United States, the time, it is money. The consolidation of influence and leadership in Latin America depends not only on the realization of regime change in Venezuela, but also on its rapid adoption. Every day that Maduro retains power, Russia and China have more of the advantage of seeking a result that does not leave them totally outside Venezuela or the region, because, to stay out of the way, not only losing what they invested, but also as The Economist recently explained.

Such a result, however, would weaken the power that the United States seeks to reaffirm: promoting a strategy in which the winner gets everything requires a quick escalation that ends the crisis, no matter what the costs. A strategy in which the winner stays with everything removes any possibility of peaceful transition to Venezuela. It marginalizes the leftist political groups, national and foreign, who would abandon Maduro, but would feel obliged to fight until the end.

There are alternatives. In Latin America and Europe, calls for the negotiation of free and fair elections have been launched. In the past, Maduro has used negotiations to prevent change and to cling to power, but the scenario is now different. With the eyes of the world in Venezuela, Maduro and those who support him at home and abroad would not have the opportunity to resort to escape. The new elections would allow Venezuelans to decide their future, which would pave the way not only for a legitimate presidency in the short term, but for a more stable transition in the long term.

Otherwise, it is the grbad that he will suffer.