A Shift in Relations between Venezuela and the US?

The Bolivarian revolution has multiple fronts open both on a domestic and international scale. In this context, relations with the United States and Colombia have been some of the most complex we have seen, since for years they have been irrationally managed. Now, when the crisis is in one of its most critical phases, it would seem that negotiation is the most convenient way. Yet, this is an art that the revolution is not managing well. Pride, fueled by the structural mistakes of Marxism and other factors, as well as the oil checkbook have made it authoritarian and suffering from significant ideological blindness.

Venezuela is causing its neighbors problems: it is a worry both for leaders in Latin American (Brazil, Uruguay) and outside of Latin America (the United States, the European Union, the Vatican) as well as for international bodies (OAS, UN, UNASUR). More recently, our hegemonic power is complicating Cuba’s openness strategy.

In the case of the United States, there have been many years of contradictions and irresponsible actions, microphone diplomacy with multiple accusations of coup d’états, assassinations, the removal of diplomatic and consular officials and even the refusal of the appointment of Ambassador Larry Palmer in 2010. In addition, the misguided economic policy characterized by the siege of companies and foreign investment, has also affected relations with the United States.

What is striking, however, is that recently there has been an atmosphere of negotiation. That is the case of the visits of Ambassador Thomas Shannon and, more recently, Republican Senator Robert Corker. It is not easy to believe in this apparent shift in position given the years of contradictions. As is to be expected of the communication hegemony of the revolution, there is no clarity on such meetings, but the leader will probably have to be clearer, thanks to the freedom of expression of other countries.

It is not difficult to determine the United States’ agenda. It has been laying it out for years. For instance:

1- Hemispheric security and terrorism: The revolution has been playing with fire in its dark links to so-called terrorist groups (Hamas, ETA, FARC, Iran, etc.) and this impacts hemispheric security. But neither has it been transparent in its fulfillment of the sanctions approved by the Security Council against Iran. Furthermore, it maintains an anti-systemic position in defending the most radical players. This is all simply an arms race on a regional level.

2- Drugs trafficking: This is a permanently hot topic. They recently announced the opening of investigations that involve senior leaders of the revolution.

3- Anti-market policy that affects companies and investment.

4- Human rights and democratic institutionalism, which cover a wide range of violations of international law.

On the other hand, it is not at all easy to infer the agenda of the Bolivarian revolution. It probably does not follow the advice of the countries in the region, who talk about trade, technology, investment, education, health, etc. It would appear that the main worry could be the alleged investigations that have been opened against the revolutionary heroes.

The negotiations are not an easy task, as the changes that the revolution should make would have to be profound enough to lead to a change in government and, in any event, the rejection of its radical members. Is that the reason for Senator Corker’s recent insult, perhaps? The revolution’s time is up, but it does not accept that. The threat of default grows, corruption and impunity continue, social dissent is showing no signs of halting… Under the circumstances, maybe they will opt to negotiate.