U.S Policy and the Venezuela-Guyana Crisis

By Luis Fleischman
Photo by aboodi vesakaran:

Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolas Maduro, seems to be moving in the direction of annexing the Essequibo area of Guyana and making it into another state of Venezuela. 

On December 3, Maduro conducted a referendum on December 3 with little participation that approved such annexation. Likewise, he appointed a governor for the future seized territory. 

Two days earlier, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Venezuela to “refrain from taking any action” to change the status quo in the Essequibo region.  

Most probably, Maduro intends to regain legitimacy by appealing to Venezuelan nationalism by detonating an international conflict in the same way that the Argentinian military dictatorship did in 1982 when it invaded the Falkland Islands, a territory under British sovereignty. In both cases, the governments of Argentina and Venezuela suffered from a deep legitimacy and governance crisis. In the case of Venezuela, Maduro is very concerned by the high participation of Venezuelans in the primary elections and the overwhelming victory of Maria Corina Machado, a candidate the government barred from running. (Machado is currently appealing her proscription in the Supreme Court).

Another reason is economics. Although the legal dispute began over one hundred years ago, the issue was reignited as Exxon Mobile discovered large oil deposits in the region. Venezuela’s economic situation is in a crisis, and it seeks to improve it through an invasion.  

Venezuela’s move is a violation of international law. 

As expected, President Lula Da Silva of Brazil, who has been a significant enabler of the Venezuelan narco-dictatorship, forced Guyana to agree to bilateral talks with Venezuela to negotiate the future of the region. 

Next, leaders from Guyana and Venezuela met in St. Vincent and, at the end of the meeting, pledged that neither side would use force. The sides did not agree, but they promised to meet again in Brazil in three months. 

Such a step constitutes a massive concession to Maduro’s aggression.   Why Guyana should negotiate its territory is unclear, but any benefit to Venezuela would be surrendering to an enemy of world democracy and the United States. 

The U.S. warned Venezuela by having joint military flight drills in Guyana. 

In case negotiations fail and Venezuela proceeds to seize the Essequibo area, a significant crisis will follow. 

The Venezuela-Guyana crisis would be comparable to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis of 1990-1991. 

Like Venezuela intends to do, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 to gain control of the oil supply to improve its economic situation that suffered after the Iran-Iraq war. Such a move would have affected oil prices, empowered Sadam Husein’s domination of the Middle East, and threatened countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations. 

It would not be different in this case. American oil companies (ExxonMobil) discovered the oil deposits and continue to operate intensively in the Essequibo region. Chevron has significant energy projects in Venezuela and Guyana. Maduro already warned these companies to abandon the area within three months. 

The Biden Administration should first build a coalition of Latin American countries that oppose such a move. However, simultaneously, the United States should subtly threaten Venezuela with military action. 

If Maduro rejects diplomacy and invades Guyana, the United States should mobilize its armed forces and send a message to the Venezuelan military that it intends to intervene, and for their safety, officers and soldiers must surrender before it is too late. If they do, it would be ideal. Military action should follow if they do not, particularly from the air. In both scenarios, the result should be the removal of the Maduro regime and the restoration of a constitutional government in Venezuela. 

The globe is confronting tremendous chaos nowadays. The world is more dangerous. Russia has taken an overly aggressive role in the world by attacking Ukraine, protecting the Assad regime, strengthening military relations with Iran, and siding with the terrorist group Hamas in the current conflict with Israel. 

Latin America is in the U.S. neighborhood. The continent today is a mixture of anarchical regimes, drug cartels, and widespread corruption. In addition, Russia, Iran, and China have penetrated deep into the continent. Governments like Venezuela encourage all these harmful elements. The magnitude of criminal activities in the region has also aggravated the crisis on the Southern border of the United States. 

Latin America has been the forgotten continent in American foreign policy for decades. 

The sanctions imposed against Venezuela seem insufficient to change the regime’s policies on human rights and democratic rule. It is unlikely that sanctions would work in the Guyana crisis. However, if Maduro proceeded with the annexation, Maduro would have crossed into the sphere of international relations and violated the sovereignty of a neighboring country. 

If the Administration hesitates, it may have profound consequences for its national security and global power. Current resistance in Congress to aid Ukraine is already projecting weakness in the international arena.   Weakness in the Western Hemisphere could further deepen the regional crisis and American worldwide credibility.

About Luis Fleischman

Luis Fleischman is a professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, the co-founder of the think-tank the Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research. He is also the author of “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Threat to U.S. Security,” and the author of the book, “The Middle East Riddle: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Light of Political and Social Transformations in the Arab World,” to be published by New Academia.”