Renowned political risk expert Ian Bremmer described US policy towards Venezuela as “regime roulette” rather than a focused attempt at regime change. Speaking to NDTV, Bremmer argued that the Biden administration’s approach has been characterized by inconsistent signals and a lack of clear strategy, resulting in a situation where multiple potential outcomes remain plausible, none of which are particularly favorable to US interests.
Bremmer’s analysis centers on the US briefly indicating support for negotiations, then leaning towards demanding free and fair elections with specific conditions attached, and subsequently seemingly accepting a less-than-ideal outcome. This fluctuating stance, he says, has emboldened Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and weakened the position of the opposition. He posits that Washington has been unwilling to fully commit to any single path – be it aggressive sanctions, military intervention, or genuine diplomatic engagement – leading to a series of miscalculations.
The recent lifting of some sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry, in exchange for limited democratic concessions, is a prime example of this “regime roulette.” While the US justified the move as a means to encourage increased oil production and alleviate global energy prices, Bremmer contends that it primarily serves to stabilize Maduro’s government, providing it with much-needed revenue. He believes this stabilization will make it even harder to dislodge Maduro in the future.
Shifting US Priorities
Bremmer suggests that the changing geopolitical landscape, particularly the war in Ukraine and the need to secure alternative energy sources, has significantly altered US priorities regarding Venezuela. The US is now willing to tolerate a less democratic situation in Venezuela if it means access to oil supplies. This pragmatism, while understandable, has come at the expense of a consistent and credible policy towards Caracas. He emphasizes the internal focus within the Biden administration on domestic issues and how that impacts external strategy.
He contrasts the current approach with previous US administrations, noting that even during periods of intense pressure on Venezuela, there was a greater degree of clarity in the end goal – pushing for a transition of power. Now, he observes, the administration appears to be primarily focused on managing the situation rather than actively seeking a solution. The interview also touched on the role of external actors, particularly Russia and China, in propping up the Maduro regime, and how their involvement further complicates the US’s options. The failure to adequately address these external supports is another key criticism leveled by Bremmer.
Bremmer warns that the “regime roulette” approach could lead to prolonged instability in Venezuela, with potentially negative consequences for the region. He suggests that a more effective strategy would require a longer-term perspective, a clear understanding of the competing interests at play, and a willingness to commit significant resources to fostering a genuine democratic transition. Ultimately, Bremmer maintains that the current US policy lacks the necessary coherence and commitment to achieve lasting positive change in Venezuela.
He concludes by expressing skepticism about the prospect of meaningful democratic progress in Venezuela under the current circumstances. The easing of sanctions, without sufficient guarantees of reciprocal action from the Maduro government, has simply allowed him to consolidate his power and continue to undermine democratic institutions, according to Bremmer.
Image Source: Google | Image Credit: Respective Owner
