Venezuela: As protests grow more violent, should neighbors weigh in?

Members of the Union of South American Nations meet today to discuss the crisis in Venezuela. With at least 21 dead amid antigovernment protests, will Venezuela get further regional backing?

Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters
Anti-government protesters clash with police during a protest in Caracas, March 12. Supporters and foes of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro took to the streets of Caracas again on Wednesday a month after similar rival rallies brought the first bloodshed in a wave of unrest round the OPEC member nation.

As violence intensifies in Venezuela amid month-long antigovernment protests, concern over instability in the oil rich nation is demanding the attention of the region. But Venezuela's neighbors, many of which have integrated economic or security interests with this South American country, are wary of angering Caracas, which has rejected any interference in its domestic unrest.

At least 21 people have died and hundreds more have been wounded in protests against the government of President Nicolás Maduro. Protesters say they are exercising a legitimate right to voice dissent while the government claims it is part of a US-backed plan to destabilize the country.

As clashes mount, and as reports of violent tactics by protesters, government forces, and third-party, pro-government militias increase, observers are asking if it is time for the international community to unite in encouraging concrete steps toward calm in Venezuela.

The handful of countries that have spoken out in recent weeks – calling for peace and talks – were met with Venezuelan reactions that ranged from cutting off all diplomatic ties (Panama) to kicking out embassy staff (the US) to stern warnings (Colombia and Chile).

Last week, the DC-based Organization of American States (OAS) convened at the behest of Panama to discuss the problem and issued a lukewarm statement supporting the Venezuelan government. Today, the foreign ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) have called an emergency meeting – encouraged by Venezuela – to address the growing conflict.

"The meeting ...will tell us a lot about how far South Americans are or are not willing to go in talking to one another about matters traditionally considered to be sovereign," wrote Julia Sweig, director for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in a newspaper column published in Brazil today.

The meeting of only South American leaders, a forum initiated by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in 2008, is expected to release a statement of support for President Maduro.

Venezuela’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Panama last week after it called for the OAS gathering sent a clear message to neighbors, says Julia Buxton, a Venezuela expert at the Central European University.

"It was a warning shot to other countries not to meddle in what Venezuela considers internal affairs," Ms. Buxton says.

'Rhetorical support?'

Governments around the region including Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Argentina have commercial, trade, and political interests with the government of Venezuela that have kept their responses to recent violence muted, analysts say. A somewhat muffled call from Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos for dialogue and an offer to help was met with a cutting retort from Maduro, who said that "Venezuela's problems will be solved by Venezuelans." 

Colombia is particularly sensitive to Venezuela’s reaction as Caracas is acting as an observer in ongoing peace talks between the Colombian government and the leftest FARC rebels. Venezuela was instrumental in bringing the two sides – which have been in conflict for more than 50 years in Colombia – to the negotiating table.

Brazil which had gained diplomatic status under President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, has shrunk back from the regional stage since his successor, Dilma Rousseff, took office in 2011.

With presidential elections and the World Cup launch quickly approaching, Brazilian politicians are busy concentrating on domestic issues, making it less likely to take a strong stand on Venezuela either way, says Joao Castro Neves, a Brazil specialist at the Eurasia Group. "Plus, the ideological convergence [between Maduro and President Rousseff] tends to diminish any mediating role that Brazil could have," Mr. Castro Neves says.

"While most Latin American leaders are currently unwilling to interfere against Maduro’s interests in Venezuela, neither are they likely to do much more than lend rhetorical support," says Michael Henderson, senior Latin American Analyst with Mapplecroft a risk analysis agency. Mr. Henderson says that some South American countries were reticent to join today’s meeting on Venezuela. Bolivian President Evo Morales, a Maduro ally, acknowledged this, saying some member nations required a significant amount of persuasion in order to agree to today’s UNASUR talks in Chile.

Jason Marczak, Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council's Latin America Center, says third party mediation by a neighboring country may not be the best route to take with Venezuela. However, he suggests that the Roman Catholic Church could play an important role. "With the pope's Latin American credentials, a church mediation may be a way to save face for the government and protesters," Mr. Marczak says.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to