A report from the Wilson Center in the United States proposes that Washington change its policy of maximum pressure on Venezuela to speed up the transition process in the neighboring country. Petro, Boric and Lula, protagonists in this strategy.
(Also: Venezuelan opposition Parliament appoints a new ‘ambassador’ to the United States)
The leftist governments of the region, especially those of Gustavo Petro, in Colombia; Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in Brazil, and Gabriel Boric, in Chile, should assume a leading role in the new negotiations that are taking place between the Nicolás Maduro regime and the Venezuelan opposition.
A role that could be the key to beginning to solve the humanitarian and democratic crisis that the neighboring country is going through.
This at least is one of the conclusions reached a new report sponsored by the Wilson Center, one of the most prestigious think tanks in the United States.
The report was produced by the Venezuela Task Force, created by this think tank and which includes a diverse coalition of analysts, including academics from Stanford and Oxford Universities, as well as members of the European Peace Institute and the United States Institute for Peace.
(Also: Government will be respectful of US extradition requests: Alfonso Prada)
Unlike the Maduro government, (the other leftist leaders) are clearly committed to democracy and the protection of human rights
Written by Abraham Lowenthal, founder of the program for Latin America in this organization and recognized expert in the region, the report also proposes a different role for Washington, where it abandons its policy of maximum pressure and “stick” to place more emphasis on the “carrot ”.
“A new feature of the landscape that could help strengthen negotiations is the coming to power in Colombia, Chile and Brazil of left-wing governments They share many values and historical experiences with Venezuela, but, unlike the Maduro government, they are clearly committed to democracy and the protection of human rights,” the report states.
In addition, it adds that the new left-wing governments in Latin America “in fact, have sometimes criticized the Maduro government, and clearly favor a democratic transition,” says the report after maintaining that both Petro, Lula and Boric enjoy “credibility”. and they have direct channels with Maduro.
(Also read: Donald Trump is fined a million for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit)
They, Lowenthal says, should be “encouraged to share relevant experiences from their countries. Their respect for democracy, governance, full protection of political and human rightsinstitutional reforms to protect indigenous people, Afro-descendants and other minorities, and social rights and economic policies to reduce poverty and exclusion, could help Venezuelans develop a vision and narrative for the future of their own country.”
According to experts, the voices of these leaders will likely be more convincing than that of a Washington that has unsuccessfully gone heavy-handed in years past.
The US government has been the most involved in Venezuela, withholding diplomatic recognition
The report argues that The United States must promote the full participation of these governments in the negotiations, but without resorting to pressure. It also suggests that Colombia, Chile and Brazil could become a new “group of friends” to accompany the negotiations.
“The United States government has been the most involved in Venezuela, withholding diplomatic recognition from the de facto government, lobbying other countries to support economic sanctions to change Venezuelan policies or oust Maduro, and dissuading other countries from recognizing Maduro. as president of Venezuela. These efforts were unsuccessful over time,” the authors argue.
(Keep reading: Maduro conditions dialogue with the opposition)
According to them, both the internal situation in Venezuela and the international context “have changed” in recent months and this requires Washington to think of a new and different approach.
Despite this, they claim the role of the United States will be fundamental because it has a very useful instrument to promote the negotiation process: sanctions and promises of gradual relief depending on progress at the table.
“This relief – they affirm – is the most important lever that the opposition has but that the United States controls,” the report says.
The document is based on two basic premises. On the one hand, the idea that the negotiations that are taking place in Mexico and Caracas are today the most viable way to find a solution to the crisis.
On the other hand, that it is a complex process, that it will take time and in the face of which expectations must be moderated.
“We have openly criticized authoritarian abuses, serious human rights violations, economic mismanagement, and divisive populism by the governments led by Hugo Chávez and later by Nicolás Maduro. But we all recognize that transitions negotiated with authoritarianism are not obtained by pointing fingers but by repairing“, they say in the report.
(You may be interested: Arrest warrant against Julio Borges, opposition leader in Venezuela: what’s next?)
We all believe that the only way for Venezuela to get out of this deadlock is to maintain the negotiation process.
He also adds that “We all believe that the only way for Venezuela to get out of this deadlock is maintaining the negotiation process to elaborate agreements that meet the interests of both the Venezuelan government and the democratic opposition.”
The authors warn that the deals are unlikely to produce a quick transfer of power or end overnight the influence in Venezuela of Maduro’s international allies that have so far allowed him to sustain himself.
As well as the negotiations, they say, remove deep resentments among Venezuelans or produce an immediate economic recovery or a return to democracy from one year to the next.
In fact, they argue, there is also no certainty that Maduro will accept handing over his autocratic power through deals leading to free elections.
But according to the report, the negotiating table is the only place where the great problems that afflict Venezuelans today can be addressed and agree on measures that allow the entry of humanitarian aid, initiate economic recovery or begin a process that leads to a more democratic system.
And it is there where the authors propose more limited objectives, which recognize this reality.
“We believe that the appropriate objectives for negotiation at this stage, therefore, are moves in these directions: improve everyday life and the perspectives of Venezuelans; reconstruction of the institutions of democratic governance, including free and fair elections with international supervision; and establish priorities to face the other major challenges”.
(You can read: From ‘drag queen’ to false name: the life of a US congressman in Brazil)
Regarding the negotiators and their international allies, the report argues that “they should not expect to solve all the country’s problems at once. These issues must be addressed by both sides with the aim of finding common ground.”
They should not expect to solve all the country’s problems at once.
For the experts, progress in these aspects, even slowly, will increase the possibility of a political opening that could facilitate agreements for more competitive elections, with international observation and gradual reforms to restore and strengthen the rule of law and build new habits of association and patterns of cooperation.
The authors are aware that some sectors, especially those that bet on the “total pressure” strategy that was implemented during the years of the Donald Trump administration in the United States, they will see a gain in sanctions relief for Maduro because internal pressure is reduced.
But they remember that the suffering and misery of the population -which is accentuated by this type of measures- rarely lead to a popular mobilization and, on the contrary, end up being accepted passively, as has happened in Venezuela throughout All these years.
(We invite you to read: Protests in Venezuela threaten to deflate the bubble of economic improvements)
This dialogue could improve the daily lives of and prospects for millions of Venezuelans.
Lowenthal also refers to a new international context which tends to be favorable to the regime and which many point to as a reason not to believe in Maduro’s good intentions at the negotiating table, but rather another delaying tactic.
Among them, the disruption of international oil markets caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine -which has translated into demand for Venezuelan crude- and the turn to the left that the region has taken.
Despite this, says this author, Maduro is still very unpopular, the economic situation continues to be critical and the country remains a pariah before the international community. All reasons, they maintain, to think that the regime does have incentives to negotiate.
(Continue reading: The challenges facing Joe Biden in his third year in office in the United States)
According to Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America program at Wilson, the success of the new dialogues is not guaranteed and, in fact, they constitute a risk. Despite this, they are the best alternative that exists at the moment and must be strongly supported.
“This dialogue -says Gedan- could improve the daily life of and prospects for millions of Venezuelans and at least begin to rebuild the country’s institutions. Something preferable to the perpetual punishment that the Maduro government well deserves but that has little chance of overthrowing the dictatorship. For this reason, almost 90 percent of Venezuelans support these negotiations, and so do we.”
SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI
EL TIEMPO correspondent
WASHINGTON
#Left #governments #key #negotiation #Maduro #opposition