Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2159664983

Oil may be the gateway to kicking Venezuelan sanctions

The looming energy crisis seems to have Biden thinking more clearly about the status quo when it comes to Nicholas Maduro.

Analysis | Latin America

According to recent reports, the Biden administration may be making some changes to U.S. Venezuela policy, including the possible easing of oil sanctions and the creation of a limited humanitarian program to assist Venezuelan migrants.

While there have been no changes yet, the Biden administration may be starting to recognize that it cannot continue with the status quo inherited from Trump if it wants to bring more oil on the market and provide some relief to the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela policy has been crying out for a major overhaul for years, and President Biden should seize this opportunity to break with one of the most harmful legacies of his predecessor. To make the most of this opportunity, the president will need to go beyond such small tentative steps and dismantle the broad sanctions that the U.S. has been imposing on Venezuela in pursuit of regime change.

If it happens, the proposed easing of sanctions would be modest and would take the form of permitting Chevron to resume oil exports from Venezuela. This would not produce a huge amount of oil, but it would help to offset the OPEC+ production cut that has roiled U.S. relations with its clients in the Persian Gulf. Any sanctions relief would help to stabilize Venezuela’s battered economy, and that might reduce the pressure on Venezuelans to leave their country in such large numbers.

Scaling back the economic war on Venezuela would benefit ordinary Venezuelans, and it would also help the U.S. manage the surge of migrants seeking entry into the U.S. and provide some assistance in reducing energy prices. If that relief can facilitate a resumption of political negotiations between Maduro and Venezuelan opposition leaders, it might offer the beginning of a path out of the political and humanitarian crisis that has wrecked Venezuela over the last decade.

It is still not certain that any of these changes will take place. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a point of downplaying the latest reports, saying, “We will review our sanctions policies in response to constructive steps from the regime.” Making the review of U.S. sanctions conditional on what the targeted government does is typical, and it is why sanctions policies remain in force long after they have been proven to be useless. Instead of waiting on a targeted government to take “constructive steps” that may never come, broad U.S. sanctions need to be reviewed regularly and removed if they are failing to achieve their stated purpose. 

In fact, the U.S. should provide much more extensive sanctions relief than the administration is currently considering. The administration is reportedly “debating how to engage with [Maduro] without legitimizing or helping perpetuate his rule,” as the Times report puts it, but it should be clear by now that Maduro’s grip on power has only tightened as the sanctions pressure has increased. The administration should not fear helping to perpetuate Maduro’s rule by engaging with him. The sanctions have already been helping to do that more than any meetings with U.S. officials ever could. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but the leaders of heavily sanctioned states usually become more entrenched in their positions because worsening economic conditions weaken their domestic opposition and make the population more dependent on the government. Insofar as the opposition has been identified with the “maximum pressure” campaign, it has damaged their political standing. While supporters of the policy present broad sanctions as a means to weaken Maduro, the reality is that the sanctions have created conditions in which Maduro is now more firmly in control than before. 

There is growing recognition in Washington that the “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela has run into a dead end. Last week, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) acknowledged that sanctions have not achieved anything: “Just in case you haven’t noticed, our policy of sanctioning and isolating Maduro hasn’t worked. At some point when your policy isn’t getting results, it’s malpractice to not try something else.”

The failure to compel Maduro to cede power has come at a great cost to the people of Venezuela, who have been made to bear the burden of economic warfare waged against their country, and the U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó is farther away from taking office than ever. Most U.S. partner governments stopped recognizing Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president more than a year ago, and the new administration of Colombian President Gustavo Petro has switched his government’s formal diplomatic recognition back to Maduro. It is long past time for the U.S. to drop the pretense that Guaidó is the head of Venezuela’s government. 

William Neuman, author of Things Are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse: Inside The Collapse of Venezuela, recently made the case for facing political reality in Venezuela and accepting that the U.S. must deal with the de facto president in Maduro. As Neuman explains, giving up on Guaidó need not mean giving up on the Venezuelan opposition. He writes:

“But by continuing to uphold the fiction that Mr. Guaidó is president of Venezuela, the administration makes it harder for the opposition to go through the necessary process of reforming itself. The United States must acknowledge reality — as it relates to who actually governs in Venezuela and the need for Venezuelans to fashion the opposition that they choose. That is the only way that Washington can play a constructive role in solving Venezuela’s crisis.”

The UN estimates that nearly seven million people have left the country in the last eight years. The exodus of Venezuelan migrants is the largest refugee crisis in our hemisphere, and the only crises that compare to it elsewhere in the world are those that have been created by major wars. That is why it was welcome news that the Biden administration is considering creating a humanitarian parole system for Venezuelans, but on closer inspection the new program would do very little to address the issue. The program would aid tens of thousands of Venezuelans, but this is a drop in the bucket when we consider the scale of the crisis.

There will be no solution to the refugee crisis without alleviating Venezuela’s severe economic and humanitarian crises, and this is where substantial sanctions relief can help. Because broad sanctions have exacerbated Venezuela’s economic woes and contributed to the country’s food insecurity, keeping these sanctions in place ensures that living conditions will remain dire. U.S. policy cannot fix the Venezuelan government’s mismanagement and corruption, but it can stop worsening the plight of tens of millions of people by lifting the sanctions that were so carelessly imposed in the attempt to force a change in government.

Image: YAKOBCHUK V via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Latin America
ukraine war
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks

Diplomacy Watch: Russia capitalizing on battlefield surge

QiOSK

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.

The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.

keep readingShow less
Weapons stocks blast off as bombs drop, troops invade Lebanon

Screen grab google.com

Weapons stocks blast off as bombs drop, troops invade Lebanon

Military Industrial Complex

It’s a sad but familiar spectacle — as people die at the hands of U.S. weapons in a faraway war zone, the stock prices of arms makers like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin soar. A piece posted yesterday at Forbes tells the tale: “Defense Stocks Hit All-Time Highs Amidst Mideast Escalation.”

One wonders how the executives of these companies feel about their products being used for mass slaughter in Gaza and dangerous escalation in Lebanon. For the most part they’re not talking, although they are glad to occasionally inform their investors that “turbulence” and “instability” means their products will be needed in significant quantities by our “allies.”

keep readingShow less
Why are we paying $2M each for these missiles?

PACIFIC OCEAN (Oct. 24, 2017) An SM-2 missile launches and destroys an airborne training target during a successful first test of the updated AEGIS Baseline 9 weapons system aboard the guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53). (U.S Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad M. Butler/Released)

Why are we paying $2M each for these missiles?

Military Industrial Complex

Since the United States government decided it had an obligation to protect global shipping from Houthi attacks in the Red Sea over 7,000 miles away from its borders, it has spent well over $1 billion in missile defense and dropping bombs on the militants’ assets in Yemen.

Whether one agrees that it is a sound strategy or not — this has gone on for 11 months with no end in sight — it is worth examining the cost to U.S. taxpayers. And looking at the cost per missile, we can safely say the U.S. taxpayer is getting rooked.



keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

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.