The US is adding more targeted sanctions on additional individuals from Venezuela. There are numerous reasons to oppose such actions, yet I keep hearing the same old narrative about how the Venezuelan government (or “regime,” as often stated) will blame the US for its troubles.
David Smilde from the Washington Office on Latin America penned a scholarly article attempting to defend this claim, countering a rant I wrote a few months ago.
My previous post followed the testimony given before the US Congress by Roberta Jacobson, a prominent official from the US State Department. During that time, she advised against imposing sanctions on alleged human rights offenders in Venezuela, indicating that rights advocates within the country suggested it would be counterproductive at such a delicate time of negotiations. The anti-sanctions perspective, represented by Smilde and others, claimed that sanctions would provide the Venezuelan government with a justification for its shortcomings. They anticipated that fresh sanctions would evoke the same rhetoric we’ve historically seen concerning US sanctions on Cuba. I found this argument rather weak since the Venezuelan government had already been utilizing that kind of rhetoric, and the US had existing sanctions. What would make these new sanctions any different?
Smilde provided instances of the Venezuelan government denouncing US sanctions. An additional example is the large march held over the weekend, originally a celebration of the 1999 constitution, quickly transformed into a protest against “imperialism.” Such instances only demonstrate that Venezuela’s government prefers to divert attention with temporary outrage.
However, none of the responses Smilde mentions demonstrate a consistent, long-term strategy of blaming the US. While it might tread into the contentious territory of “national character,” it seems that Venezuelans may not embrace a “victim” mentality. Perhaps they prefer to be seen as winners. Who knows? In any event, I have not witnessed the Venezuelan leadership discussing US sanctions for more than a week or two after they are enacted. I suspect this time will be no different.
Ultimately, it’s all theoretical now. As Boz pointed out, whether the new sanctions will shift rhetoric in Venezuela remains uncertain, but that is beside the point. What truly matters is if these sanctions grant protesters in Venezuela greater freedom.
Personally, I am not a fan of “smart” sanctions. If the US has a valid case against individuals involved in corruption or human rights abuses, it should assist relevant authorities, domestically or internationally, in apprehending these individuals and ensuring they receive a trial. How is it beneficial to bar them from entering the US? It appears self-defeating. Sure, it attacks their vanity, but denying someone a trip to Disneyland is hardly a suitable punishment for genuine human rights violators. If the US lacks substantial evidence, then sanctions become punitive measures without due process, which in itself violates a fundamental human right.
Moreover, the hypocrisy cannot be overlooked. A nation that seeks to condemn the persecution of protesters must address its own issues (see Ferguson, or the Barrett Brown case, for example). The criminalization of protests is a global issue. The US frequently supports human rights violations in “friendly” nations like Egypt, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. You have to start somewhere, I guess, and it would be refreshing if this truly reflected a newfound respect for human rights. If only.