President Nicolás Maduro shows no sign of compromise as ‘zero hour’ approaches – the 30 July election for a national constituent assembly – which the Venezuelan opposition fears will allow Maduro to consolidate a military dictatorship in the country. Even as the international community ratchets up the pressure, the Caracas government has doubled down and notably, there is no sign of the military breaking with Maduro. Close observers of Venezuela including the Bogotá-based International Crisis Group are warning of “a grave danger of violence on a scale so far unseen”, advising external players that “inaction is no longer an option”. A negotiating structure of some sort simply must be found, it urges.
On 20 July, the Venezuelan opposition claimed an 85% adherence rate to a nationwide civic strike in protest at the Maduro government. It was difficult to know the veracity of the opposition’s claims, but certainly the streets of Caracas and other main cities across the country appeared empty in TV images relayed by local and international media.
Despite the ‘New Year’s Day’ feel, the day was anything but quiet, with the most reported arrests in a single day since April, amid continuing clashes between protestors and the Venezuelan security forces. According to Alfredo Romero, director of the Venezuelan Penal Forum (Foro Penal), an NGO that provides free legal counsel to detainees and monitors the country’s prison system, there were 367 detentions, led by the restive Western border state of Zulia, where 140 were arrested, with high numbers also in states of Carabobo (66), Nueva Esparta (43) and Aragua (24). There were also two to three deaths reported, taking the total official death toll since these anti-government protests broke out to 97/98 (with an unofficial death toll of about 115, as reported by opposition media).
The Foro Penal says that 4,072 civilians have been arrested since 1 April. Of these, 1,007 remain in detention. A further 479 have been presented before military tribunals, with 307 sentenced to prison by these military courts. The NGO considers another 444 detainees to be political prisoners. The Maduro government denies that there are any political prisoners at all in Venezuela (it admits only to ‘imprisoned politicians’), and it has also defended the use of military tribunals to try civilians, on the grounds that protestors have attacked and assaulted military officers. In most cases, these alleged assaults were against the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB), the country’s military police, which has taken the front line against the anti-government protests since April.
The same day as the national civic strike, a senior Venezuelan diplomat, Isaias Medina, a minister counsellor at the UN for legal and environmental affairs, publically broke with the Maduro government over the systematic repression of protestors.
Medina, a lawyer and environmentalist, published a video on YouTube in which he criticised the “unlimited repression and persecution” of young protestors, in particular students, and said he could no longer remain silent against the “incoherent chaos” of a government that was repressing the people it was meant to defend. Pointing out that Venezuela was a party to the Statute of Rome (which established the International Court of Justice at The Hague), he noted that the Statute defines very clearly crimes against humanity and persecution [state aggression], and said that “this has been happening for an extended period in Venezuela”. “It is time for change. People are demanding change. We have a serious humanitarian problem, there is no food”, he stated. In a subsequent interview with the Associated Press (AP), he said Venezuela was “a failed state”. He accused Maduro of “dictatorship” and of “crimes against humanity” and called on him to resign. Rejecting those comments outright, Rafael Ramírez, Venezuelan’s permanent representative to the UN, said Medina had acted “dishonestly” and had been relieved of his post.
The NGO Amnesty International (AI), which has documented the Venezuelan protests since April, has also suggested that Maduro could be accused of crimes against humanity. Ignacio Jovtis, an Argentine human rights investigator sent to Venezuela on behalf of the NGO, told the Spanish daily El País on 20 July that AI had observed a State policy of systematic violent repression against dissidents, along with government rhetoric inciting violence. It also considers civilians put before military justice to be the victims of arbitrary detention under international law. These findings, he suggested, could legally be considered evidence of crimes against humanity by the Venezuelan State.
In his latest (third) report on Venezuela, the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, also said that the repression of protests was “not a series of random or isolated incidents of violence. Under the direction of President Maduro, the cabinet and top military commanders, the regime has developed and implemented systematic practices of repression through the criminalisation of opposition and civil society voices, arbitrary detention, the military prosecution of civilians, and the excessive use of force against peaceful protests…The regime has created a “new normal” where systematic institutional violence of the state is used in a dirty war against the people,” Almagro alleges.
A group of 100 Chilean and Colombian deputies in mid-July denounced Maduro before the ICJ for crimes against humanity, based on reports compiled by the UN, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, local and international NGOs and official Venezuelan reports from the attorney general’s office led by the now-dissident Luisa Ortega Díaz. Asked as to whether this type of case might proceed, Jovtis said that the complaint might be accepted should legal evidence mount against the Maduro government, but he suggested that third countries, first and foremost, would need to act (i.e. lodge a formal case with the ICJ). As things stand, this appears unlikely.
Nonetheless, with a string of current and former Venezuelan government officials (including serving ministers) also under sanction by US authorities for alleged crimes including drug trafficking, money laundering, illicit association and criminal conspiracy, there is little doubt that the ‘exit costs’ for the Maduro administration are very high. Latest threats by US President Donald Trump indicated that they were about to get higher again, with the State Department all but confirming that further sanctions were being readied, most likely against Venezuela’s defence minister and military chief, General Vladimir Padrino López, and Diosdado Cabello, number two in the ruling Partido Unido Socialista de Venezuela (PSUV). State Department sources were also hinting that latest measures are being coordinated with the support of third countries, including in Europe and Latin America, in order to give them added weight (and to prevent Maduro from taking political advantage of unilateral US action). US media sources suggested that these new sanctions could be announced before the 30 July constituent assembly process.
Yet as conflict resolution specialists point out, reducing the exit costs for the Maduro administration (and those closely associated with it) may be critical to a negotiated solution to the Venezuelan crisis. Agreeing legal arrangements, whether in the form of political exile and asylum, or a domestic transitional justice process, tend to be uppermost in this. While likely unpalatable to some in the Venezuelan opposition, these discussions may be inevitable. The UK’s Financial Times (FT), which caused a stir in Latin America in late July with a suggestion that Presidents Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Raúl Castro of Cuba were laying the groundwork for a negotiated solution (a claim immediately denied in forthright manner by the Colombian foreign minister), likewise observed that “the point of departure for all negotiated transitions – be that in Northern Ireland, South Africa or Colombia – is ‘talks about talks: establishing the where, who, and what of transition negotiations”.
The pressure on Maduro to compromise remains intense. Following a turnout of almost 7.3m for its informal national plebiscite on 16 July, and an apparently-successful civic strike four days later, the opposition had called another mass demonstration for Saturday 22 July as part of its ‘Zero Hour’ strategy – a final push against the government ahead of the 30 July D-day. Henrique Capriles Radonski called on Maduro to cancel the constituent assembly, as “the least costly” option. “It’s the easiest option. Do they think this situation is sustainable? Do they think they can impose themselves upon millions of Venezuelans? The answer is obvious: no,” he tweeted on 20 July.
The Mexican foreign ministry on 20 July also formally called for the suspension of the constituent assembly as a way to “open the door to a negotiation towards a democratic solution”, adding its voice to the 10 countries and two international organisations pressuring Maduro to back down from the divisive process. These include the US, Canada, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru and Spain, along with the European Union and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), the Brazil- and Argentina-led regional trade bloc from which Venezuela has already been suspended.
The Vatican has yet to issue a similar call, but a direct plea by Pope Francis to Maduro to suspend the constituent assembly would be a markedly strong statement.
The position of Cuba
Citing sources close to the Santos government, the FT on 16 July had suggested that Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos and Cuba’s Raúl Castro were in talks as part of a fresh regional diplomatic effort, backed by Argentina and Mexico, to resolve the Venezuelan crisis. Santos, reportedly, had agreed to lead this effort because of his unique position as someone with deep knowledge of Maduro and Venezuela, and a good working relationship both with the Castro government (which sponsored the recent peace process with the Farc) and also the White House. The FT speculated that Cuba might once again play host to transition negotiations, noting that “Maduro and his retinue might feel comfortable in Havana”. Colombia’s foreign minister, María Angela Holguin, quickly quashed the FT story, saying it categorically was not true. After his Havana trip however, Santos tweeted that “the whole world” wanted Maduro to suspend the constituent assembly process, a tweet that seemed to provoke particular fury in Caracas.
Cuba has long been a staunch defender of the Caracas government. The Venezuelan opposition claims that Cuba continues to closely advise (if not direct) the Maduro government. Yet Castro also has motive to see a resolution to the Venezuelan crisis. Not only is Castro under renewed pressure from the US Trump administration, but the Cuban economy is also feeling a very heavy toll from the Venezuelan crisis.
In late July, the former economy minister, José Luis Rodríguez, acknowledged as much on the pro-government website CubaDebate, noting that earnings from professional service exports (mostly medical services) – Cuba’s main source of foreign exchange revenues – were projected to fall again this year, after an almost 12% drop in 2016. According to Rodríguez, professional service exports generated about US$11.5bn in annual earnings, on average, between 2011 and 2015, but these fell by 11.8% in 2016. Rodríguez estimated a further fall of 8.5% this year, due to a drop in earnings not only from Venezuela, but also from Brazil. On top of the reduced Venezuelan oil shipments to the country, this amounts to a double whammy for the Cuban economy at a critical time, ahead of its own political transition of sorts in 2018, when Castro has pledged to step down and hand over the reins to the next generation of the ruling Communist Party.