Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1388669990-scaled-e1645043295439

Why did a Biden official deny US sanctions’ humanitarian impact on Venezuela?

Washington is exacerbating an economic crisis that’s hurting ordinary people who are being treated as pawns.

Analysis | Latin America

Imagine this: A member of Congress asks a White House official to respond to studies showing that the government’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to a significant number of deaths. The official refuses to accept the premise that U.S. government policies have anything to do with the suffering of the American people and says that the responsibility for the pandemic falls entirely on the Chinese government.

This exchange took place last week. Except it wasn’t about COVID. It was about U.S. sanctions. It took place during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing when Congressman Chuy García (D-Ill.) asked Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere Brian Nichols to respond to studies showing that U.S. sanctions have significantly impacted Venezuela’s economy and humanitarian situation. Replace the Chinese government with Chavez and Maduro in the above exchange, and you’ll get the official’s response (you can see the video here).

As Rep. García pointed out, there are by now several studies documenting the harmful effect of U.S. economic sanctions on Venezuela’s economy. In a recent paper for the Sanctions and Security Research Project, I surveyed the evidence and concluded that it is nothing short of overwhelming.

U.S. sanctions targeted the access to international and financial markets of Venezuela’s oil industry, which has historically accounted for more than 95 percent of Venezuelan foreign currency revenue. Time-series data and detailed econometric analysis of firms operating in Venezuela’s Orinoco Basin clearly show that U.S. sanctions led to a significant decline in the country’s capacity to produce and sell oil. In a companion piece, Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, a Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, found that sanctions on Iran helped bring about a significant spike in inflation, rendering many essential consumption goods unaffordable for households.

The expectable consequence of U.S. targeting of the Venezuelan oil industry was a reduction in the country’s imports, including food, medicine, and other essentials. Not all the reduction in exports observed over the past eight years is explained by sanctions — lower oil prices and poor economic policies also played important roles — but the evidence clearly shows that sanctions made an important contribution. They thus helped drive the deterioration of the country’s humanitarian conditions, including through massive increases in undernourishment and mortality.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the number of undernourished Venezuelans has grown more than five-fold over the past five years. That’s more than 6 million persons who used to have access to adequate nourishment in the recent past and today no longer have it (not counting an additional 6 million who have left the country). Venezuela’s prevalence of undernourishment today is higher than that of Afghanistan or Sierra Leone. The sharp rise in infant and adult mortality in the same period has led to the additional deaths of 13 thousand Venezuelans each year — 3,000 of them among children less than a year old. These results are a direct consequence of a 93 percent collapse in the country’s export revenues and a 72 percent decline in per capita incomes.  Sanctions have made a direct contribution to this collapse and are therefore a cause of many of these deaths.

The standard response of sanctions denialists when confronted with this evidence is to change the question. Instead of addressing the harm caused by their policies, they point the finger at the damage done by the policies of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez. This reasoning is deeply disrespectful and insulting to the thousands of Venezuelans whose lives are threatened by the recklessness of U.S. foreign policy.

No civilized nation should adopt policies that target vulnerable civilian populations. In fact, no other nation does. The United States is the only country to impose economic sanctions on Venezuela. Other countries have explicitly limited themselves to individual sanctions targeted at regime leaders and have openly rejected and criticized the use of economic sanctions that hurt ordinary Venezuelans.

The Biden administration needs to stop sticking its head in the sand when presented with evidence of the consequences of its actions. It must confront the evidence that its policies are increasing the suffering of millions of people and contributing to causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yes, the United States and the international community have a responsibility to stand up to authoritarian leaders who undermine democracy around the world. Treating Venezuelan lives as expendable collateral damage is not the way to do so.


Editorial credit: Edgloris Marys / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Latin America
Boeing
Top image credit: EVERETT (WA), USA – JANUARY 30 2015: Unidentified Boeing employees continue work building its latest Boeing 777 jets at its Everett factory (First Class Photography / Shutterstock.com)

A nuclear deal with Iran could generate billions for US economy

Middle East

As the U.S. and Iran engage in fraught rounds of nuclear talks, deep distrust, past failures, and mounting pressure from opponents continue to hinder progress. Washington has reverted to its old zero-enrichment stance, a policy that, in 2010, led Iran to increase uranium enrichment from under 5% to 20%. Tehran remains equally entrenched, insisting, “No enrichment, no deal, No nuclear weapons, we have a deal.”

In Washington, the instinct is to tighten the screws on Tehran, make military threats credible, and explore strike options to force capitulation. Yet history shows that these coercive tactics often fail. Sanctions have not secured compliance and have proven costly to U.S. interests. Military strikes are unlikely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; instead, they risk convincing Tehran to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

keep readingShow less
Moscow shopping
Top photo credit: A cover dance band performs during an event devoted to the Spring Festival, at a shopping mall in Khimki, on the outskirts of Moscow, Russia, February 10, 2024. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

Despite war, Moscow is booming

Europe

Russia is no stranger to costly, grinding wars. Soviet authorities made a point of allowing the performing arts to continue during the 872-day battle for Leningrad during World War II, widely considered the bloodiest siege in history.

Thousands of displaced and starving locals flocked to the Mariinsky, Komissarzhevskaya, and other theaters to the unrelenting hum of shelling and air raid sirens. The 1942 Leningrad premiere of Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony stands as both a singular cultural achievement and a grim reminder of Russian tenacity in the face of unspeakable hardship.

keep readingShow less
Donald Trump and Xi Jinping
Top Image Credit: Donald Trump and Xi Jinping (White House photo via Flickr)

Will Trump choose deal or discord with China?

Asia-Pacific

Last week President Trump finally had the phone call with Xi Jinping that he was reportedly “obsessed” with arranging. Today Trump's top trade, treasury, and commerce officials are set to meet a Chinese delegation led by Vice Premier He Lifeng at an undisclosed location in London for talks.

This followed a week of Trump suggesting he would blow up the crucial relationship with China that was only recently steadied after an alarming month of spiraling economic warfare. That began when, without advance warning, Trump posted that China “HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US.” Then at 2am the day before the call, he wrote that Xi is “VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.