How To Avoid A Venezuelan Civil War
How To Avoid A Venezuelan Civil War
How To Avoid A Venezuelan Civil War
Many of the worlds most intractable armed conflicts were triggered by far less
dramatic circumstances than the current crisis in Venezuela.
Although most governments in the region have appealed for a peaceful resolution
to the political impasse, few are offering concrete solutions. Back in April,
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and at least ten other governments demanded that
Maduro set a timetable for elections, recognize the National Assembly, and free all
political prisoners. Maduro ignored them. When the OAS voted to hold a high-level
meeting to discuss the emergency, Maduro threatened that Venezuela would leave
the organization. So far, Venezuela remains a member, but its Foreign Minister,
Samuel Moncada, accused OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro of staging a coup
detat" and stirring-up civil unrest in Venezuela. More recently, Maduro accused
Colombia, Mexico, and the United States of conspiring to oust him from power.
Washington, in response, has slapped sanctions on Maduro, whom it labels a
dictator, to ramp up pressure on the regime.
The United Nations approach has been even less active. The organization has
stated that solutions to the Venezuelan crisis cannot be imposed from the outside.
The reality is that the UN is focused heavily on armed conflicts elsewhere,
especially in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. And, given substantial
budget cuts implemented after the US reduced its contributions, the UN cannot
afford to take on another large-scale mission. For now, the organization is opting
for strategic patience. Its refugee agency, the UNHCR, is not ready to manage a
massive outflow that would follow an implosion in Venezuela.
BRING IN THE GUARANTORS
Latin America has a long history of conflict prevention and resolution. In a recent
example, Chile and Peru settled a longstanding maritime dispute through the
International Court of Justice, in 2014. Although it has no explicit mandate for
preventing conflict, the OAS has also played a role in mediating territorial disputes
between Belize and Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and Guyana and
Surinam. UNASUR also mediated a dispute between Colombia and Venezuela, in
2010. As important as these international and regional mechanisms are, many of
Latin Americas flare ups have been eased through even more localized efforts.
For example, in the 1980s, Argentina and Brazil resolved their geopolitical rivalry,
which included a nuclear arms race, bilaterally through a series of mutual
confidence-building measures. The process culminated in the formation of new
verification mechanisms and led to the voluntary dismantlement of both nuclear
arms programs. Likewise, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, and Peru, among others,
all created Truth and Reconciliation commissions to deal with past traumas and
promote positive peace. There is no shortage of creative and effective tools in the
region to help de-escalate tensions and avoid descent into war.
Arguably the single most potent conflict prevention innovation, coming out of Latin
America in the past few decades, is guarantor states. Since the 1980s, guarantor
states (in partnership with multilateral organizations) have played a central, if
discreet, role in shaping peace processes. Far from being passive bystanders,
guarantors help jumpstart negotiations, build confidence among parties, manage
logistics and resources, provide expertise, and more generally, lend momentum
and credibility to peace talks. Occasionally, they also provide solutions to impasses,
albeit very quietly and usually only on request. They are distinct from mediators,
which act as third parties to actively assist negotiations to end a conflict. Instead,
guarantors ensure that the terms of the negotiations and a final agreement are met.
They are often unencumbered by the rigid protocols and divisive politics of regional
organizations.
Latin American guarantors have a decent record of facilitating negotiations in both
inter-state and internal conflicts. In 1998, the treaty ending a century-old dispute
between Ecuador and Peru had the support of four guarantors; Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, and the United States. Meanwhile, in Colombia, after repeated failures to
broker a peace deal with the FARC, four countriesCuba and Norway as
guarantors, and Venezuela and Chile as facilitatorsadopted a new approach. As
for Colombias National Liberation Army (ELN) in Colombia, six guarantor states
(Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Norway, and Venezuela) have served as witnesses
and sounding boards, gently pushing talks with Bogot along. Guarantors are no
panacea, of course, especially if parties are staunchly opposed to any form of
dialogue.
VENEZUELAN SOLUTION
Venezuela is dangerously close to slipping over the precipice. Many of the worlds
most intractable armed conflicts were triggered by far less dramatic circumstances
than the current crisis in Venezuela. The consequences of a full-blown civil war
would be dramatic for the region, with potentially dramatic spillover effects. As
hard as it is to imagine, there is still a window of opportunity for preventive
diplomacy. The mobilization of guarantor states would be especially palatable for
Venezuela, since any negotiations would be nationally-led, as in the case of
Colombia. Guarantors could help catalyze and advance dialogues between the
Maduro regime and the opposition.