The Cost of Freedom - On the Venezuelan Crisis and American Policy

   Sunday, July 28th, 2024 – while the American electorate was becoming increasingly enthralled in the 2024 Presidential Race, with a little more than three months until a fateful election day – over a thousand miles away, the South American Nation of Venezuela held a highly questionable, controversial election: with consequential ramifications for not only the Venezuelan nation-state, but the 2024 American Election, alongside American Foreign policy, the wider international economy, and the current geopolitical balance altogether. As the results trickled in throughout the night, the two-term incumbent and nominee of the Hard-Left Great Patriotic Pole, Nicholas Maduro – whose 11-year tenure as president has been characterized by authoritarianism, political repression, rising violence, economic penury, hyperinflation, and mass emigration from the struggling nation – claimed victory in a widely disputed, and contentious election marred by incredulous autocratic tendencies, alongside rampant irregularities. With widespread reports of political intimidation from the Venezuelan military, and an absence of international watchdogs to ensure fair voting practices, with Venezuelan authorities reportedly persecuting and detaining nonpartisan poll watchers.

    This practice, clearly indicating the untrustworthy circumstances surrounding the election – coupled with the plethora of irregularities surrounding the results as proclaimed by the Venezuelan Government, with Maduro allegedly outperforming nearly every pollster and pundit’s predictions – to win a narrow victory against the Liberal, opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez in a result that was characterized by irregularities closer resembling the electoral process of totalitarian Russia than the South American Republic. With additional mathematical and probability-based indications of a haphazardly executed electoral fraud according to statistician Terrence Tao, alongside a lack of information surrounding results by region and precinct as well as veritable vote certification surrounding the ‘official results’ of the election from the Venezuelan Government.  Furthermore, if such irregularities and blatant government interference do not elucidate the fraudulent nature of the election – the sheer lack of electoral verification from the Venezuelan government alongside the incongruencies between the results announced by the National Electoral Committee, or CNE, and the results cited by National Identity Verification and regional results as released by credible databases and the Venezuelan opposition revealed that in reality: Maduro lost in a landslide – having won just over 30 percent of the vote, compared to Gonzalez’ 67 percent – a figure consistent according to most non-governmental polling and approval ratings, and verified by meticulous recordkeeping. However, following this insurmountable defeat, and the electoral triumph of Liberal Democracy – Maduro’s government has resorted to despotism – engaging in press censorship, the nullification of opposition counts of electoral results, mass arrests of civilians exercising their inalienable right of civil disobedience, and the violent military repression of popular protests.

   As Maduro’s autocratic regime further embeds despotism and dictatorial rule into the national character – millions of Venezuelans have fled the increasingly unstable and isolationist nation in recent months and years to escape a country desecrated by government persecution, widespread violence, and tyranny – with that number expected to increase following Maduro’s electoral crackdowns. A considerable derivative of that figure having immigrated to the United States, many undocumented – fueling the current immigration crisis which has fostered a surge in the American Far-Right, spurred on by nativist and anti-immigration sentiments as refugee camps and sanctuary cities are overrun by a constant influx of migrants, which shall only be exacerbated following the dismal Venezuelan election, which dozens of our fellow Republics have recognized to be fraudulent. Therefore, as Maduro’s administration backslides further into a tyrannical quagmire, and as millions emigrate from the troubled regime elsewhere: it seems ever the more apparent that as a democratic transition seems impossible, international action and intervention beyond a mere symbolic condemnation will be paramount not only for advancing the rights and liberties of the Venezuelan populace but the cause of republicanism in Latin America, with potentially consequential impacts for both the American Election, and the wider international environment and economy.

   Although the concept of foreign intervention, especially action undertaken by the United States may be anathema to a great many Americans – given the current atmosphere and attitudes surrounding interventionism by the American government with actions such as economic sanctions, or a more contentious, direct involvement – correlating such policy with truculence or even imperialism; as the foremost Republic on the international stage and the perennial Leader of the Free World, the United States holds a not only a vehement obligation, and an archetypal ethical responsibility to the fellowship of humanity to be the vanguard of democracy and international liberty, but to be steadfast in ensuring that the republican process is respected. Ensuring that despots, lacking the consent of the governed, do not abridge the popular will and persist in the Americas, as well as negatively impacting American internal affairs, which regarding the Venezuelan crisis is increasingly becoming the case. First and foremost, the United States has a responsibility to exercise her aforementioned moral obligation as a nation whose exigence derives from the principles of Enlightenment Values, democratic institutions, a vivacious heritage of espousing republicanism, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness not only through promoting but protecting and championing the cause of democracy. Especially in a Republic linked by both proximity and the annals of history, afflicted by atrocious democratic backsliding ever since the election of Venezuelan Military Officer and self-proclaimed Marxist Hugo Chavez in 1998, who along with his hand-picked successor Maduro have orchestrated a national digression from Liberal Democracy towards a totalitarian, oppressive regime characterized by her volatility and repression.

   With regards to the contention of American ethical responsibility to intervene on behalf of democracy; as the world's foremost Democratic force, the United States – although having executed a plentitude of historic interventionist blunders (albeit minimal in comparison to the historic democratic triumphs brought about by American intervention) – possesses an ethical and ideological obligation to uphold and champion the will of the populace in the face of tyrannical adversity. Not only to advance the liberties and freedoms of the Venezuelan people, and to advance the fellowship of humanity with democratic vigor, but to remove one of the last dictatorships in the Americas, whose instability has exacerbated the immigration crisis in America thereby increasing our stake and responsibility in the matter. One whose government has desecrated a land once known for her economic potential, and has been a stalwart supporter of Russian and Chinese authoritarian expansion. Furthermore, the ramifications of American action – whether it be economic sanctions and condemnations championed by the United States and our allies throughout the West, or even if Maduro’s repressions escalated into more despotic instances of malfeasance a more aggressive and direct intervention –  would be climacteric not only for the balance of power in the Americas, but the geopolitical struggle against despotism left and right, alongside the internal stability and strength of the United States amidst an unprecedented Immigration crisis. Moreover, such actions on behalf of the United States would improve the quality of life and the fiscal prosperity of the common individual ubiquitously, by opening up the isolationist Venezuelan state to the international community – enriching average Venezuelans and Americans alike.

     Pertaining to the contention of economic incentives surrounding intervention, Venezuela is second to none in her economic potential within the region – with the greatest amount of proven oil reserves possessed by any country on the planet, with over 304 billion barrels, accounting for just under one-fifth of the global petroleum supply, and enough to theoretically sustain the nation for centuries. Despite this natural plentitude in resources, under Maduro, the Venezuelan state has remained largely isolated from the international market with a radically protectionist economic policy nationalizing the entirety of Venezuelan Petroleum resources, which beginning in the 2010s (primarily as a consequence of Venezuelan isolation) fostered a cataclysmic degree of hyperinflation in the Venezuelan currency, and economic destitution amongst her citizens – overshadowing Venezuelan potential and desecrating the lives of her inhabitants. This isolationist quagmire for Venezuelans however could be comfortably ameliorated following hypothetical foreign intervention, for the Venezuelan petroleum reserves would be under the management of a more practical, rationalist government and would therefore allot a sizable amount of aforesaid reserves for foreign exports, a certain degree of privatization, and free trade in the international markets to alleviate the current state of penury in the nation and kickstart an economic resurgence in the region.

    Such a course of action (which was espoused by Gonzalez’s campaign in 2024) would not only alleviate the living conditions of the average Venezuelan via international commerce, thereby lifting millions out of poverty but would subsequently benefit both the American and international consumers by considerably reducing the price of oil and thereby increasing the fiscal power of the average citizen the world over. Furthermore, commerce and investment opportunities in a democratic, internationalist Venezuela could bolster both the Venezuelan and Pan-American economies and present vital economic opportunities for the newer generations across the continent. Additionally, access to Venezuelan petroleum if traded into the European Union through American assistance, could assist in eroding a historical European dependency on Russian oil, which has been a primary economic hindrance, preventing a more vehement conviction against Russia in the current Russo-Ukrainian War by the European powers (granted such propositions are a little more quixotic but still worthy of consideration).

    On the other hand, the accessibility of Venezuelan petroleum reserves in the international market could precipitate complications surrounding certain economic special interests – a contentious matter that shall be explicated shortly – yet is dwarfed by comparison to the apparent benefits to be had for the average consumer and producer, from the availability of Venezuelan oil in the international market. Do not be mistaken, however, despite the analysis and emphasis surrounding the economic benefits of Democracy in Venezuela, American intervention in foreign affairs ought not to be dictated and motivated by avarice. Rather, intervention akin to the proposed Venezuelan solutions originates from a moral, ethical, obligation as the world's foremost democratic superpower to uphold Republican institutions in the daunting face of despotism. An obligation to champion the will of the populace and to contribute to the betterment of humanity, and to enrich the international quality of life; rather than solely one’s own coffers, is the exigence of such a proposition. However, the potential economic benefit and incentive for the average American is merely an expedient dividend for all parties involved regarding intervention.  

   A trichotomous contention pertaining to the incentive for and rationale behind potential intervention in Venezuela relates to the current immigration crisis in America, exacerbated by the emigration of millions of refugees from autocratic rule and societal instability, primarily into Mexico and the United States. This malignant dilemma, of increasingly seismic influxes of immigrants (of which a considerable portion originates from Venezuela) contributing to the overflow of refugee camps and due to the preponderance of these migrants being undocumented, the issue has consistently been at the forefront of American political discourse and has largely defined much of the Biden Administration’s policy and legacy, with many urban metropolis’ turned sanctuary cities’ resources increasingly stretched thin. As Immigration has increasingly characterized the 2024 Presidential Election, and as the Venezuelan crisis and her descent into authoritarianism has largely disrupted and impacted American internal affairs – the American populace, government, and the whole of Latin America possess a burgeoning stake in the Venezuelan Electoral crisis, in addition to our moral obligation to invariably defend the democratic process, and the economic incentive shared by the international community. However, a majority of Venezuelan migrants residing in the United States have expressed in numerous polls and informal plebiscites their resolved desire to return to Venezuela if Maduro’s regime were to be replaced by the democratic opposition. Not only would such a resolution alleviate the American economy and national resources, but it would also improve the quality of living and humanitarian situation for the millions of refugees across the Americas that constitute the Venezuelan diaspora. Thereby not only enriching the prosperity of the entirety of the Americas but also ameliorating the rise of radical political movements fueled by immigration catastrophes. 

   Therefore, with not only a resounding moral responsibility as the leader of the Free World to champion Republicanism and the will of the populace, a veritable and venerable cause at that, but also the considerable benefit to the average American, Venezuelan, and the greater international community, both with regards to economic prosperity and assuaging the constant influx of migrants across the continents’, a firm resolve behind intervention in the form of a more consequential condemnation, economic sanctions, or even a forceful backing of opposition forces via direct intervention and pressure would seem apparent, almost obvious. However, aforesaid endeavors by the American State and our allies in the region are rather unlikely, at least relative to historical interventionist forays – despite the near-universal venerability of intervention in the name of genuine democracy and humanitarian progress. On the contrary, such a solution appears to be met not only with meager ambivalence, but a firm resistance and excoriation of any such solutions, and this is predominantly due to two significant yet unexpected causes, which although influential in the discourse, both directly contradict the cause of Republicanism and ethical resolve in favor of liberty, and both are fueled by avarice and special interests.

 The first of the two primary hindrances originates from three supposed American Allies within the region and to a certain degree; Latin American powers in their own right – who have contrary to Venezuelan popular outcry and widespread foreign condemnation, expressed a peculiar congeniality with the dictator and have expressed skepticism in the highly veritable accusations of fraudulence. These three Republics I am alluding to are Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia – whose presidents and foreign ministries have not only, despite initial requests for verification from the CNE, expressed a certain degree of disbelief in accusations of fraud on behalf of the government, with Mexican President Andrez Manuel Lopez Obrador who stated there was no evidence of fraud during the Venezuelan Election, or Brazilian President Luiz Inacio de Silva, commonly known as Lula, who has perpetuated diplomatic support of the Venezuelan state and has even deterred other nations foreign ministries from advocating for a more confrontational response in the name of democracy.

   These three nation’s governments however – despite their opposition to foreign intervention, and their apathetic response to popular outcry even amongst Venezuelan refugees in their own nation’s – are all free Republics with democratically elected governments and institutions. However, their support for an autocracy, seemingly incongruent with their constitutions and practices can largely be attributed to several metrics. First and foremost, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia’s administrations and Presidents – Obrador, Lula, and Petro respectively: all elected on platforms that resoundingly championed the defense of Democracy and the advancement of popular liberty, hold a certain ideological affinity towards Maduro’s administration. As the governing parties of all four nations share membership in the Sao Paolo Forum, an ideologically Leftist political conference consisting of both democratically elected Left-Wing polities (as in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, etc.), alongside the governing polities of authoritarian and one-party dictatorships, such as Maduro in Venezuela, the Communists in Cuba, and Daniel Ortega’s dictatorship in Nicaragua.  In this dimension, the Sao Paolo Forum, which is united by a merely ideological affinity, can somewhat be understood as a quasi-democratic organism due to her integration and advocacy for dictatorships. Moreover, despite the veracity behind much of the reforms espoused and accomplished by several Sao Paolo Forum members – largely serving to benefit the common worker and citizen through socio-economic advancement (which in that regard, the Forum is highly commendable) –  relying upon an ideological, partisan common ground as the basis for and the rationale behind not only diplomatic affinity with, but the defense of dictatorships who barbarically repress their people goes against nearly every progressive principle that the Sao Paolo Forum prides itself on advancing. For the ideological affinity between two nations ought not to be the defining metric in foreign relations if it inhibits and contradicts the advancement of democracy – for diplomacy of that kind which forgoes Republican institutions and genuine progress in favor of ideological similarities – even when it means oppressing the populace that one intends to help, resembles less a democratic bulwark of the 21st Century, and more a corrupt, Cold War Era foreign policy which sacrifices integrity and the social contract, instead propping up dictatorships (left or right), to perpetuate one’s own avaricious agenda.

    However, it is worth mentioning that more than a meager ideological affinity towards Maduro’s regime, several of the aforementioned governments – predominantly Brazil – have an economic incentive to back Maduro’s stranglehold over the Venezuelan state, as one of the few predominant foreign export deals that the protectionist Venezuelan government does have is between Venezuelan state-run Petroleum departments and the Brazilian government. Furthermore, business relations have recently flourished between Venezuela and Brazilian state-owned Oil Magnate Petrobras – as the latter has sent continuous delegations to the nation and even attracted investments, with some of the few Venezuelan oil exports going into Brazil, alongside ties with the Chinese authoritarian state, one of Venezuela’s main financiers and backers. This economic benefit and incentive would be greatly diminished in the scenario of Venezuelan democratization for Venezuelan petroleum would more likely be open to a wider international market, to alleviate the current state of poverty within the nation – therefore devaluing many current arrangements with the few nations who benefit from the current Maduro regime. Thus, the apparent motivation on behalf of foreign opponents of intervention who have thus far deterred a stronger response from the American State Department – are driven by either an ideological affinity or pure avarice – both of which are firmly incongruent with the interests of democratic enhancement within the South American Republic, which must be prioritized by the United States and her allies with primacy above all else.

   Meanwhile, the latter yet considerably more impactful hindrance of American intervention on behalf of the Venezuelan people originates not from foreign apathy or avarice, but from internal resistance against such a resolve. The internal resistance I am alluding to however does not derive from the same ideological pantheon as the Sao Paolo Forum, despite some minor apprehension to the idea of a firmer condemnation, sanction, or even direct intervention as imperialistic or overbearing on the left – the most vehement yet quiet resistance, disguised as ambivalence to such a solution resides within corporate interests, expressed primarily (but not entirely) by the historically hawkish Republican Party. The Republican Party in the United States, although traditionally an advocate of foreign intervention (albeit many of the most egregious of foreign blunders in American history have been executed by Republican administrations, many of which contradictory to the interests of democracy and of the populace), appears to have exercised considerable ambivalence and apprehension towards intervention of any substantial kind for Venezuela beyond symbolic declarations, an indication of a highly inconsistent trend of selective foreign intervention by the United States historically speaking.

   This aforesaid apprehension towards intervention in Venezuela can primarily be attributed to a conflict of interests surrounding party financiers and corporate lobbyists for domestic petroleum within the United States and the cause of democracy in Venezuela. For if Venezuela were to be democratized, the administration would (as emphasized in campaign policies above) lift state restrictions on petroleum exports to revitalize the Venezuelan economy and quality of living – a policy which would also greatly benefit the international economy and assist the common citizen via less expensive and less monopolized oil. Such an undertaking, however, although highly beneficial to the average American’s fiscal standing, would potentially detriment domestic Oil corporations and shareholders who profit significantly from American oil exports, yet whose value would decrease if the international market were to be flooded with an influx of Venezuelan Oil, decreasing the price and therefore the compensation received by present Oil monopolies, although benefiting the average American’s spending power and improving the cost of living ubiquitously – therefore also having the benefit of fueling economic growth in other dimensions. However, this moderate devaluation of domestic oil corporations, although primarily benefiting higher-level shareholders and ownership – rather than the employees of such organizations, whose situation would only change marginally and would likely be counteracted by the increase in commerce coming into America – remains the predominant hindrance of greater outcry for stronger condemnation and intervention amongst the American political discourse. This dilemma, however, is one that as demonstrated above is fueled merely by avarice and an emphasis on the profits experienced by marginal special interest groups whose corporate lobbyists and influence largely stand in opposition to intervention or democratic progress when it is inconducive with their desired dividends (another example of opposition to intervention on behalf of democratic interests when fiscally undesirable, can be understood in the Conservative opposition to funding the Ukrainian people in their strenuous fight against the invading, and largely fascistic Russian government due to perceived funding inconveniences).

    Such a policy and opposition to intervention is one that directly contradicts and abridges the very principles for which our Republic stands and contradicts the moral obligation to intervene not to advance one’s position, but to benefit the humanitarian condition of fellow man and to advance Republicanism as opposed to totalitarianism. Furthermore, as a democratic Venezuela would mitigate much of the current influx of refugees, which could at least in America’s case have positive impacts on the 2024 Election, by assisting in a particularly sore department for the incumbent administration – another reason for resistance on the Right, with minor opposition deriving from the other end of the spectrum, due to general opposition to foreign engagement altogether. However, the corporatist position, although overlooking the benefits that a free Venezuela would bring to international commerce, the cause of decreasing the cost of goods and living, which could potentially ease inflation in time, or to geopolitics by tipping the balance of power away from tyranny, is not uncommon throughout historical foreign policy. That being, selective intervention in conflicts and/or foreign nations when it may be economically conducive to special corporate interests while disregarding the international conflict between Democracy and Dictatorship, is an unfortunate trend regarding the historical foreign policy of many global superpowers, and one which has on occasion tarnished the United States’ global reputation. Furthermore, it can be argued that this trend of selective intervention, or lack thereof, helped fuel the rise of vehemently Anti-American radicals such as Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela who transformed their Republic into an autocracy, however, that subject is far more complex and intricate, dates back decades, with a myriad of particular regional causes that vary by country.

   However, the quintessential axiom surrounding foreign policy and the principled resolution to the matter, is that intervention, sanctions, condemnations, and deliberations must coincide with rational yet unwavering ethical conviction, and policy befitting of the 21st Century – intervening in the name of genuine Republicanism, rather than doing so, or refusing to do so, out of ideological affinity or greed.

     In conclusion, after having analyzed the electoral dilemma in Venezuela, the despotism and cruelty of the incumbent government, the moral obligation as the world’s foremost democracy to champion the will of the populace, the ubiquitous humanitarian, logistical, fiscal, and internal benefits of democratization, and the sources of resistance to such a resolve – it is with utmost sincerity and alacrity that I reaffirm the venerability behind the intervention of this kind. However, in between the conflict of moral obligation and avarice, it is pivotal to find compromises and arrive at an understanding that upholds not only the principles of liberty, but the integrity of all parties involved, in order to find the most universally rational, honorable, and beneficial solution, best befitting the circumstance – which in this case would likely begin with firm, collective Economic Sanctions followed by further condemnation and forceful intervention if necessary. Lastly, it is archetypal for not only the United States, but for every enlightened Republic to champion a foreign policy that intervenes without hypocrisy and one that advances liberty and counteracts the greatest present threats to international democracy, and both government and individual advocates financed by those threats. For as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of our nation’s greatest Presidents and Leaders eloquently liturgized, it is the American responsibility to be an Arsenal of Democracy in the face of totalitarianism. An arsenal, willing to honor liberty even against the lofty cost of freedom. An arsenal challenging tyranny – at home and abroad – and championing a brighter tomorrow.