With the Venezuelan crisis nearing a showdown, President Trump gave his saber a new rattling on Monday, warning the Venezuelan military in a speech to abandon President Nicolás Maduro or “lose everything.”
Yes, the military should abandon Mr. Maduro, who has guided one of Latin America’s richest countries to total ruin, and join the opposition leader Juan Guaidó in trying to put Venezuela back on track. But it should not be Mr. Trump issuing ultimatums, threatening the soldiers or telling them what to do. Mr. Trump and Mr. Guaidó have set a deadline of Saturday for the military to allow humanitarian aid stockpiled at the Colombian border to be delivered to Venezuela. The “or else” remains vague.
Mr. Trump appears to have made an exception in his preference for strongmen and is championing a people driven to desperation by a valueless currency and drastic shortages of medicine and food. Some 50 nations have joined the United States in no longer recognizing Mr. Maduro as president.
The Trump administration has tried to spin this as an example of American leadership in bringing freedom to a destitute people. At the annual Munich Security Conference, Vice President Mike Pence called on Europeans in ringing terms to get on America’s side and “step forward for freedom.” The tepid reaction made clear that the Europeans don’t buy a sudden burst of altruism in this White House.
Mr. Trump is only incidentally speaking out in support of the downtrodden. His chief motivation appears to be to rally his far-right base by proclaiming himself a warrior against “socialism” — an evil he identifies not only with the radical policies of Hugo Chávez, Mr. Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, but also in the platforms of some Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Mr. Trump’s stance on Venezuela, moreover, is advanced by John Bolton, the hawkish national security adviser who has called for “direct action” against Latin American countries with leftist regimes he calls the “troika of tyranny” — Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. He is abetted by Elliott Abrams, the new special envoy for Venezuela, who pleaded guilty to misleading Congress about the 1980s Iran-contra scandal and other past American meddling in Central America. This is a crew that threatens to tar Mr. Guaidó with their brush and that plays right into Mr. Maduro’s claims of a “gringo” plot.
Their strategy is as simple as it is risky. The administration has airlifted tons of humanitarian aid for Mr. Guaidó to distribute inside Venezuela, on the premise that desperate people will rally to the side that’s providing them with food and medicine. But Mr. Maduro has sent soldiers and armored vehicles to block the aid, creating a dramatic confrontation at a border crossing that will be the backdrop for a Live Aid-style concert that the British billionaire Richard Branson is staging on the Colombian side (Mr. Maduro promptly announced a rival concert on his side of a different crossing).
The administration and Mr. Guaidó hope that the Venezuelan military, sensing the end of the Maduro regime and lured by promises of amnesty, will defect and clear the way for the shipments. Mr. Trump on Monday warned the military that if the soldiers don’t accept the amnesty offer, they will find “no safe harbor, no easy exit and no way out.”
It is an open question whether Mr. Trump’s tough talk will succeed or have the opposite effect, rallying Mr. Maduro’s base behind him. And it is unclear what the opposition will do if the army doesn’t crack.
What is clear is that the administration’s saber-rattling and use of aid as a weapon are a dangerous and potentially counterproductive strategy for helping the Venezuelans.
Obviously it would be best for all if the military let Mr. Maduro know that his time was up and assisted Mr. Guaidó in organizing new elections. And the more international pressure on Mr. Maduro to step aside, the better. But the goal must be what serves the Venezuelan people best, not an ideological coup.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
We and our partners use cookies on this site to improve our service, perform analytics, personalize advertising, measure advertising performance, and remember website preferences.Ok
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Venezuela’s Border Standoff
Opinion | Venezuela’s Border Standoff
With the Venezuelan crisis nearing a showdown, President Trump gave his saber a new rattling on Monday, warning the Venezuelan military in a speech to abandon President Nicolás Maduro or “lose everything.”
Yes, the military should abandon Mr. Maduro, who has guided one of Latin America’s richest countries to total ruin, and join the opposition leader Juan Guaidó in trying to put Venezuela back on track. But it should not be Mr. Trump issuing ultimatums, threatening the soldiers or telling them what to do. Mr. Trump and Mr. Guaidó have set a deadline of Saturday for the military to allow humanitarian aid stockpiled at the Colombian border to be delivered to Venezuela. The “or else” remains vague.
Mr. Trump appears to have made an exception in his preference for strongmen and is championing a people driven to desperation by a valueless currency and drastic shortages of medicine and food. Some 50 nations have joined the United States in no longer recognizing Mr. Maduro as president.
The Trump administration has tried to spin this as an example of American leadership in bringing freedom to a destitute people. At the annual Munich Security Conference, Vice President Mike Pence called on Europeans in ringing terms to get on America’s side and “step forward for freedom.” The tepid reaction made clear that the Europeans don’t buy a sudden burst of altruism in this White House.
Mr. Trump is only incidentally speaking out in support of the downtrodden. His chief motivation appears to be to rally his far-right base by proclaiming himself a warrior against “socialism” — an evil he identifies not only with the radical policies of Hugo Chávez, Mr. Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, but also in the platforms of some Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Mr. Trump’s stance on Venezuela, moreover, is advanced by John Bolton, the hawkish national security adviser who has called for “direct action” against Latin American countries with leftist regimes he calls the “troika of tyranny” — Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. He is abetted by Elliott Abrams, the new special envoy for Venezuela, who pleaded guilty to misleading Congress about the 1980s Iran-contra scandal and other past American meddling in Central America. This is a crew that threatens to tar Mr. Guaidó with their brush and that plays right into Mr. Maduro’s claims of a “gringo” plot.
Their strategy is as simple as it is risky. The administration has airlifted tons of humanitarian aid for Mr. Guaidó to distribute inside Venezuela, on the premise that desperate people will rally to the side that’s providing them with food and medicine. But Mr. Maduro has sent soldiers and armored vehicles to block the aid, creating a dramatic confrontation at a border crossing that will be the backdrop for a Live Aid-style concert that the British billionaire Richard Branson is staging on the Colombian side (Mr. Maduro promptly announced a rival concert on his side of a different crossing).
The administration and Mr. Guaidó hope that the Venezuelan military, sensing the end of the Maduro regime and lured by promises of amnesty, will defect and clear the way for the shipments. Mr. Trump on Monday warned the military that if the soldiers don’t accept the amnesty offer, they will find “no safe harbor, no easy exit and no way out.”
It is an open question whether Mr. Trump’s tough talk will succeed or have the opposite effect, rallying Mr. Maduro’s base behind him. And it is unclear what the opposition will do if the army doesn’t crack.
What is clear is that the administration’s saber-rattling and use of aid as a weapon are a dangerous and potentially counterproductive strategy for helping the Venezuelans.
Obviously it would be best for all if the military let Mr. Maduro know that his time was up and assisted Mr. Guaidó in organizing new elections. And the more international pressure on Mr. Maduro to step aside, the better. But the goal must be what serves the Venezuelan people best, not an ideological coup.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article