ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • The Downfall of the Venezuelan Petrostate

    The Downfall of the Venezuelan Petrostate

    VENEZUELAN OIL: A BLESSING OR A CURSE?

    Venezuela, notorious in the global energy arena for its possession of the Western Hemisphere’s largest reserves of light and heavy crude oil along with the world’s largest reserves of extra-heavy crude oil, has experienced both the blessings and the curses associated with such resources. The Venezuelan economy became dependent on these natural resources, as is the case with many developing nations. The resulting phenomenon in which a country’s government has become overly dependent on natural resource exports and thereby neglecting to invest in other, arguably less lucrative, sectors has been coined “Dutch Disease.” Reliance on the revenues from fossil fuels has earned Venezuela the status of being a petrostate. Typical characteristics of petrostates include an elite minority concentrating power, corruption, and weak political institutions, which are reflected in Venezuela’s current political climate. This brief provides an historical overview of the current political, economic, and humanitarian crises.

    Striking Black Gold

    Venezuela’s major oil reserves were tapped into in the early 1900s, and commercial scale oil drilling began in 1917. Following the end of World War I, American and British multinational oil companies became interested in Venezuelan oil reserves and traveled to Lago de Maracaibo. The discovery of oil in Venezuela’s Maracaibo Basin in 1922 by Royal Dutch Shell sparked the beginning of the nation’s oil trade on an international scale. Consequently, by the 1930s, well-known companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Gulf, and Standard Oil had become so heavily invested in such endeavors that they ended up controlling approximately 98% of the Venezuelan oil market. Following the death of Venezuelan President Juan Vicente Gómez  in 1935, a tug-of-war ensued between foreign oil companies and the Venezuelan government in regards to issues such as taxation, regulation, and ownership. In an effort to reassert control over its own natural resource, Venezuelan lawmakers passed the Hydrocarbons Law of 1943, ultimately requiring foreign companies operating in Venezuelan territory to give half of their oil profits to the Venezuelan state.

    Political Transition, Economic Boom, and Nationalization

    Venezuela established its first stable democratic government in 1958. The oil industry, the most lucrative sector of the economy, had a great impact on the government. In the process of establishing its new government, leaders from the country’s three major political parties signed the Punto Fijo Pact, which guaranteed state jobs and oil rents would be allocated to each party in proportion to the voting results. The goal of the punto Fijo Pact was to limit political infighting and ensure the majority of oil profits went to the state.

    Venezuela was the top exporter of petroleum from 1929 to 1970. The Venezuelan Minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons, Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, began advocating for a plan to enable top oil-producing countries to have greater control over their oil in 1959. In the following year, Venezuela joined Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to form the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This gave the world’s leading petroleum producers the ability to coordinate oil prices and possess greater control over their national industries.

    Venezuela established its first state oil company and increased oil company taxes to 65% of profits in 1960, in an effort to assert further control over its natural resources. Demand for Venezuelan oil grew in the 1970s when the Gulf states briefly limited oil exports due to a political crisis with Israel, and the Irananian Revolution disrupted oil exports. At this time, Venezuela’s per-capita income was the highest in Latin America. In 1976, President Carlos Andrés Pérez officially nationalized Venezuela’s oil industry, culminating in the creation of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). PDVSA oversaw all aspects of the oil industry and foreign companies were only allowed to partner with PDVSA if PDVSA held 60% equity in joint businesses. While the 1970s were characterized by positive economic strides, the global marketplace in the 1980s began to experience falling oil prices and high inflation rates, culminating in Venezuela accruing massive foreign debt as the nation purchased foreign oil refineries that were previously held by Citgo and other well-known oil companies.

    The Blunders of the Chávez Presidency

    In the 1990s, Hugo Chávez gained popular support with a socialist platform, and became president in 1998 with the promise that he would use the wealth generated from oil reserves to reduce poverty and inequality. Upon becoming president, Chávez kept his promise by expanding social services and reducing poverty by 20%. However, many of the president’s decisions came at the detriment of the oil industry. As a means of increasing oil prices, Chávez decided to cut production, meanwhile PDVSA hoped to increase oil production so that the heavy oil fields could be further developed. PDVSA officials argued against increased political control over the institution. They claimed that taking revenues from the oil industry without reinvesting funds in infrastructure and exploration of other avenues would be detrimental. This would prove to be true as the reduced profit reinvestment led to a significant decline in the country’s petroleum production. Countless oil workers went on strike, many of which were fired by Chávez, resulting in the loss of crucial managerial and technical expertise. As is common with the resource curse, investment in other sectors of the economy lagged because of a focus on oil.

    At the same time, Chávez worked to further promote Venezuelan oil on an international scale. The Venezuelan president hoped to strengthen OPEC and increase international oil prices. In addition, Chávez hoped to expand business endeavors to other regions, particularly in the Caribbean through the 2005 PetroCaribe Alliance. This alliance provided countries in the region, including Cuba, with crude oil and refined products under more favorable terms. This agreement aimed to promote regional economic cooperation and counterbalance US influence in the Caribbean.

    Chávez’s Legacy and The Rise of MaduroChávez’s presidential reign came to an end in 2013 when he died of cancer; however, his decisions would prove to have long-standing consequences. During his presidency, Chávez paved the road toward authoritarianism for his successor, Nicolás Maduro, by ending term limits, controlling the Supreme Court and the press, as well as nationalizing private businesses and foreign owned assets.

  • Russian Economics – Domestic and International Developments, and the US

    Russian Economics – Domestic and International Developments, and the US

    Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, a state marked by its centrally planned economic system, the modern Russian state transitioned to a market-based economy. However, Russia’s economy is still significantly influenced by a powerful conglomerate of policymakers and oligarchs. 

    Economic Status of Russian Citizens

    Russia ranks 70th internationally in quality of life of citizens. Low wages are a large part of the problem; the average yearly income is roughly $11,260. Although the financial standing for the average Russian has improved over the last thirty years, 12.6% of Russian live below the poverty line. In addition, the average Russian pensioner receives a monthly stipend of $59. Because of this, many pensioners have to supplement this stipend by growing their own food. Russian currency has depreciated over the last few years. In 2020, 74 Russian Rubles were equal to 1 USD or 0.85 Euros. However, the Russian government provides free healthcare and public school education to every citizen. Thus, the average Russian is not burdened by these expenses, and can use their income for other essentials. While Russia has experienced some economic growth since 1991, there is still much to be done to improve the living standards for the average citizen.

    Image Courtesy of The Moscow Times

    Population Decline

    Due to lower birth rates and increased emigration, compounded with the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s population is expected to decrease significantly. Between 2021 and 2024, Russia’s population is projected to decrease by roughly 1.2 million people. This potential population decrease would have a disastrous impact on Russia’s already limited labor force, and the inability of immigrants to enter the country to work due to the pandemic has only exasperated this problem. 

    Imports and Exports

    Although Russia is quickly transitioning to a service-based economy, it is still a prominent exporter of raw materials. In 2019, Russia’s primary export partners were China (14%), the Netherlands (10%), Belarus (5%), and Germany (5%). Of these exports, wheat, iron, and especially natural gas and petroleum to western Europe were most significant. Russia must import technology from more technologically developed states to keep up. It relies on imported car and vehicle parts, medicine, computers, and aircraft technology from China, Germany, and Belarus, each state accounting for 20%, 13%, and 6% of Russia’s total imports in 2019, respectively.

    Europe relies heavily on Russian natural gas and oil, and a new pipeline called Nord Stream II is currently under construction. The Nord Stream II project will stretch from Ust-Luga, Russia, to Northeast Germany. The pipeline will strengthen the European Union’s natural gas supply security and streamline the delivery of Russian gas. The new pipeline is predicted to add 2.7 billion euros to the Russian GDP and create roughly 144,000 full-time pipeline-related jobs.

    Image Courtesy of bne IntelliNews

    Despite the tumultuous relationship between American president Biden and Russian president Putin, the former seems to have little objection to the European Union furthering its reliance on Russian energy. President Biden elected not to sanction the company behind the project, Nord Stream AG, even though engaged in sanctionable behavior, because the pipeline was almost complete. Sanctions would have a damaging effect on the United States’ European allies, who stand to benefit significantly from the pipeline.

    Image Courtesy of The New York Times

    The United States has become increasingly reliant on Russian energy as well. Given the sanctions on Venezuelan crude oil and the reduced shipments from OPEC states, Russian oil and petroleum products have supplemented the United States’ energy needs. In 2020, Russian oil and refined products accounted for a record high 7% of American oil imports and surpassed imports from Saudi Arabia. Valero and Exxon Mobil imported roughly 55 million and 50 million barrels of Russian oil in 2020, respectively.

  • Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    The international community implements sanctions against Iran to discourage their development of nuclear technology. These sanctions mainly target the Iranian economy and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear development program. Sanctions come from three major actors: the United States of America, the United Nations and the European Union. In international diplomacy, sanctions, especially economic ones, are utilized by countries or organizations to coerce, deter, punish or shame other international actors that might endanger their own interests or violate international norms of behavior. Iran has become the target of economic sanctions since they were suspected of developing uranium enrichment in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1967. 

    United Nations Sanctions

    The United Nations led the first set of sanctions related to Iran’s development of nuclear technology. The UN adopted Resolution 1737 in 2006, which prohibited countries from transferring nuclear and missile related technology to Iran and required all countries to freeze the assets of Iranian organizations and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Sanctions were levied after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment activities after warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The UN Security Council further expanded its sanctions against Iran in 2008 by adopting Resolution 1803, which required UN member states to actively prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear or missile technology and added thirteen people and seven entities to the UN blacklist. The additional resolution was adopted because Iran continued to oppose IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities. In 2010, Iran, Brazil and Turkey came to a joint agreement to provide fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. In reaction,  the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 which tightened proliferation-related sanctions and banned Iran from carrying out nuclear-capable ballistic missile tests. The resolution also added an arms embargo on the transfer of major weapons systems to Iran. In 2016 the UN acknowledged Iran had complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and passed a new resolution which lifted some sanctions. 

    European Union Sanctions

    Similar to the UN, the European Union levied sanctions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In a 2007 measure, the EU froze the assets of individuals and entities related to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. Further measures like visa bans, frozen assets, and actions against Iranian trade, financial services, energy and transport were implemented by the EU in 2010. The EU lifted their sanctions in 2016 when Iran signed onto the JCPOA and began adhering to those regulations.

    United States Sanctions

    Compared to the UN and the EU, the United States has a more complicated history of sanctions against Iran. The US began to impose sanctions on Iran in 2009 in response to then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stated aim to build 10 uranium enrichment facilities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed sanctions on foreign companies that helped supply gasoline to Iran.

    In 2011, the IAEA released a report detailing how Iran’s current nuclear program could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Following this report, the US designated the Government of Iran and all financial institutions in Iran as entities of money laundering concern and warned global financial institutions that doing business with Iran was risky. That same year President Obama sanctioned the Central Bank of Iran and other financial institutions for processing transactions related to oil and petroleum products on behalf of Iranian companies and the government. Despite continued talks between Iran and the international community, negotiations for an agreement fell through as both sides were unwilling to make concessions In 2012, the US signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act which banned insurance, reinsurance, and other shipping services involved in nuclear proliferation. Congress further limited Iran’s oil exports and access to foreign currency reserves in 2013. President Obama added sanctions against foreign financial institutions that conducted transactions with Iranian currency or had accounts outside of Iran. When the JCPOA was implemented in 2015, the US slowly began to lift sanctions However, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and brought back all previous nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. Similar to the previous set of sanctions, these new sanctions were made against the Central Bank of Iran and required U.S. companies to sever contracts with Iran within 180 days.

    Impact of Sanctions

    Sanctions have greatly affected Iran’s economy but failed to deter Iran’s development of nuclear technology. Before the JCPOA, Iran’s GDP decreased by 20% and unemployment rose. Oil exports decreased from 2.5 mbd (thousand barrels) in 2011 to 1.1 mbd in 2014 and Iranian currency depreciated. The economic sanctions discouraged international banks and firms from engaging in commercial and financial transactions with Iran. With the return of sanctions and withdrawal from the JCPOA during the Trump presidency, similar economic consequences have impacted Iran’s economy. The reimplementation of sanctions have further damaged the oil industry in Iran with oil exports plummeting in mid-2020. Even with the new sanctions, the Iranian government refuses to slow down their nuclear development. Citing Trump’s backing out of the JCPOA, the Iran government sees the JCPOA as useless and believes it is in their right to push for higher uranium enrichment. As a result, Iran has begun to develop new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment and has placed restrictions on the IAEA’s ability to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities. 

  • Key Policymakers of the Russian Federation

    Key Policymakers of the Russian Federation

    The Russian political system centers itself around a presidency that is seldom held accountable by other branches of the government. President Vladimir Putin, who is currently serving his fourth term, is a testament to this. His regime consists of his closest allies—former security and military officers, coined siloviki. The siloviki not only form Putin’s elite inner circle but also hold the highest positions in government. The Putin regime also depends on the knowledge of technocrats, who are policymakers appointed based on their expertise in a particular area.

    This article aims to look into these top officials’ government positions and ideologies to represent the kinds of policymakers that make up the Russian political system.

    President Vladimir Putin

    After graduating from Leningrad State University, Vladimir Putin joined the KGB as a foreign intelligence officer and served for over a decade. He began his political career in 1991 when he became a top aid for Anatoly Sobchak, a former mentor, and mayor of Leningrad. He later held other political roles including as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Prime Minister for two terms. When unpopular President Boris Yeltsin resigned on in 1999, Putin finally reached the presidency.

    Putin was quickly popular among Russians, winning the 2000 presidential election with 53% of the vote. Putin’s first term sought to strengthen the weakened Russian state and set out a series of reforms to raise Russia as a competing power with the West. Although there is debate about the success of Putin’s initial reforms, he won re-election in 2004, 2012, and 2018. 

    In 2020, Putin supported a constitutional referendum that introduced over 200 changes. One of the amendments allows him to stay in power until 2036 if re-elected for two more terms. Nearly 78% of Russian voters supported the amendments to the constitution, which has spurred a debate on the legitimacy of the vote. Putin’s well-known critic, Alexei Navalny, described the results as an inaccurate depiction of public opinion. Furthermore, the other recent amendments to the constitution reflect Putin’s ideology of economic liberalism and conservative Russian nationalism. Some examples of the other amendments include a ban on same-sex marriage, a ban on top government officials from holding foreign papers, and stipulations for the minimum wage. Many also argue that the recent amendments reform the balance of power in the Russian political system due to the change in the role of the State Duma, regional governors, and the State Council. As a result, the changes could curtail the influence of the presidency.

    Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin

    Mikhail Mishustin came into his position in early 2020, after Dmitry Medvedev resigned from office. A long-time bureaucrat, Mishustin was the former Director of the Federal Taxation Service for ten years. He is a technocrat who is popular amongst business circles due to his modernization of the Russian tax system. Mishustin’s background in systems engineering and economics allowed him to spearhead efforts to technologize the federal tax service, which increased the country’s tax revenue. 

    Some argue Putin handpicked Mishustin for his management skills and pro-Kremlin allegiance, leading to speculation that his experience will enable him to influence Russia’s economy. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Mishustin approved the creation of a coronavirus task force, declared a state of emergency, and allocated funds to support businesses.

    Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu

    Sergei Shoigu began his political career in the early 90s. He held minor positions in the Communist Party and was the Chairman of the RSFSR State Committee for Emergencies in 1991. Shoigu was also Minister of Civil Defense: Emergencies and Disaster Relief and Governor of the Moscow Region. Putin appointed Shoigu to his current position in November of 2012, naming him General of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Defense of the Commonwealth of Independent States in addition to Minister of Defense

    Ahead of the upcoming 2021 parliamentary elections, Putin added Shoigu to the United Russia elections list, leveraging Shoigu’s popularity to stir up voter enthusiasm. Much of Shoigu’s popularity stems from his hardline military positions and apprehensions about the West and NATO. Most notably, Shoigu had a role in directing military operations during the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent Ukraine crisis. 

    Director of FSB Alexander Bortnikov

    Alexander Bortnikov started his career in 1975 as an officer in the KGB. By 2003, Bortnikov became Head of the FSB Directorate of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. Other positions he held include Head of the Economic Security Service of the FSB and Deputy Director of the FSB. Former President Medvedev appointed Bortnikov Director of the FSB in 2008. The FSB is one of the most powerful security agencies in Russia. In many ways, it is the successor of the KGB and deals with national security matters. 

    Although appointed by Medvedev, Bortnikov is considered one of Putin’s loyal siloviki due to his background in security services. The European Union imposed sanctions on Bortnikov and other government officials for his connection to Alexei Navalny’s poisoning. He was also sanctioned by the EU for shaping Russia’s policy in Ukraine through his role in the Security Council, which led to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Recently, Bortnikov announced that the FSB would follow agreements reached by Putin and Biden to cooperate on cybersecurity issues. 

    Director of Rosneft Igor Sechin

    Igor Sechin is the President and Chairman of the Management Board for Rosneft. Rosneft is one of Russia’s largest state-owned oil companies. The company holds significant political and economic influence, particularly in Russian foreign policy. 

    Sechin served as a deputy of Putin’s early in his political career, where they developed a close relationship. Some argue that Sechin is one of the most feared men in Russia, as he is one of Putin’s main advisers and a prominent figure of the siloviki. Although the faction follows conservative and nationalist ideals, Sechin has publicly portrayed himself as a champion of the market economy. During the 2016 US presidential election, the Steele Dossier named Sechin in its accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. Sechin was also one of the officials affected by US sanctions after the annexation of Crimea. 

    Former Prime Minister Victor Zubkov

    Victor Zubkov is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Gazprom. Gazprom is a state-owned oil and natural gas company and Russia’s largest corporation. Putin and Zubkov formed a relationship when Putin was chairman of St. Petersburg’s committee on external relations in the early 90s while Zubkov served as deputy chairman. Zubkov’s political career also involved positions at the Federal Tax Service and Federal Financial Monitoring Service before becoming Putin’s First Deputy Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012. 

    A subsidiary of Gazprom owns the Nord Stream Pipeline 2, which has been the center of media and political controversy. The proposed pipeline would run from Russia to Germany. The issues surrounding Nord Stream 2 stem from environmental and geopolitical concerns, as many world leaders found it to conflict with the EU’s interests. Some also argue that the Russian government favors the project because it would limit dependence on Ukrainian transit. Recently, the project has resumed after a deal between the US and Germany was reached. 

    First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko

    Sergei Kiriyenko is the First Deputy Chief of Staff to Putin. Before his current position, Kiriyenko served a short term as prime minister under Yeltsin, right before the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Kiriyenko also headed Rosatom, the state nuclear corporation. Kiriyenko’s political and business experiences make him a technocrat.

    Recently, the US imposed sanctions on Kiriyenko in response to the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny. The US Department of Treasury referred to Kiriyenko as a “domestic policy curator”. In addition, Kiriyenko subscribes to the political philosophy of  Georgy Shchedrovitsky. Shchedrovitsky founded the Moscow Methodology Circle, which some describe developed a theory of social engineering that suggests that one can manipulate society.  

    Secretary of Security Council Nikolai Patrushev

    Nicholai Patrushev began his career as an officer for the KGB and eventually became the Director of FSB from 1999 to 2008. Putin appointed Patrushev Secretary of the Security Council in 2008, a position that allows him to consult the president on matters of national security. Due to his security background and advisory role, Patrushev is considered a member of Putin’s siloviki faction. He has been influential in foreign policy decisions and played a role in the annexation of Crimea. Patrushev has also been a proponent of a security strategy that ensures Russia can both withstand sanctions and respond in kind. 

    In 2018, the US Department of Treasury issued sanctions against Partrushev and other Putin allies for “malign activity”. These allegations included supplying the Assad regime with weapons and participating in cybercrime. Tensions have increased between countries, and Patrushev has become a vocal critic of the West. 

    Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov

    Sergei Lavrov began his career in diplomacy, serving in several different positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Lavrov was appointed to his current position in 2004 and is the longest-serving foreign minister of the Russian Federation. 

    In recent years, China-Russia relations are strong as the nations have cooperated on BRICS, the SCO, and on the UN Security Council. When the Biden Administration imposed a series of sanctions on Russia, Lavrov compared current US-Russia relations to Cold War tensions. Lavrov also recently wrote an article heavily criticizing the US, EU, and NATO.

    Chairman of State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin

    Vyacheslav Volodin is the current Chairman of the State Duma and previously served as Putin’s First Deputy Chief of Staff from 2011 until 2016. Volodin was a top advisor to Putin, once stating “no Putin, no Russia.” As Putin’s Chief of Staff, Volodin helped shape domestic policy. Many argue that Volodin assisted in maintaining the appearance of a “managed democracy” by embracing the media and ensuring that the Kremlin-approved candidates won elections.

    As speaker of the State Duma, Volodin has assumed a greater role in parliamentary politics. This year, Volodin announced that China-Russia relations continue to grow stronger. He also accused the US of promulgating the notion that multiple world powers cannot coexist. Volodin made a statement against the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on same-sex marriage, maintaining Putin’s amendments to the Constitution of Russia. Similar to other powerful Putin allies, both the US and the EU imposed sanctions on Volodin. 

    Former Presidential Advisor Vladislav Surkov

    Vladislav Surkov held many positions in the executive branch of government, including Deputy Prime Minister under both Medvedev and Putin. Most notably, however, Surkov was a top advisor to Putin until he resigned in 2020. Surkov was nicknamed the “Grey Cardinal” for his significant influence at the Kremlin, particularly in its policies on Ukraine. Many credit Surkov as the architect of Putin’s political strategy called “sovereign democracy”. The concept of a sovereign democracy or managed democracy alludes to authoritarianism disguised by democratic institutions. In addition, Surkov became known for intimidating the media, enabling him to censor journalists and disseminate propaganda.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Brazil Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Brazil Relations

    Source: Map Resources, adapted by Congressional Research Service 

    Brazil: A Rising Power

    With the fifth largest landmass in the world and the largest population in Latin America (home to roughly one third of the region’s total population), Brazil is a prominent regional power. The country has become a cornerstone of South American growth, which can be attributed to its vast resource-rich territory, which contains most of the Amazon rainforest. With the world’s eighth largest economy, Brazil has been recognized as an emerging world power. Brazil is part of BRICS, the acronym used to designate the world’s most influential emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Brazil has also asserted its growing international influence by advocating for better representation of developing nations in international bodies; for example, Brazil has claimed it has a right to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. As Brazil’s role in hemispheric and global affairs becomes more prominent, so does the influence the country exerts on international policy issues that affect the United States. 

    Fact sheet

    • Population: 213,445,417
    • Capital: Brasília
    • System of Governance: Federal Representative Democratic Republic, under a Presidential System
    • President: Jair Messias Bolsonaro
    • Majority Language: Portuguese 
    • Majority Religion: Roman Catholic (64.6%)
    • GDP Per Capita: 6,796.8 
    • Global Freedom Score: 74/100
    • GINI Index: 53.5

    Brief History with the U.S. 

    U.S.-Brazil relations are characterized by unsatisfactory efforts to establish a so-called ‘special relationship’ based on the features these countries share: both are young, multi-racial democracies with open economies. For the most part, Brazil has largely avoided this special status and replaced it with cautious distancing. Still, and despite mutual misunderstandings and tensions, the United States enjoys a friendly relationship with Brazil. The U.S. was the first nation to recognize Brazil’s independence from Portugal in 1822. After breaking off from Portugal, Brazilians established a constitutional monarchy and retained its slave-based plantation economy. It was not until 1888 (23 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in the U.S.) that Brazil finally abolished slavery and put an end to its longstanding monarchy by founding a constitutional republic. 

    The first decades after independence were characterized by the rule of an authoritarian oligarchy. Coffee plantation owners remained in control of Brazil’s economic and political power. This oligarchical rule came to an end with the rise of the populist Getúlio Vargas from 1930-1945, who devised a unique development model known as Estado Novo, or “New State,” characterized by a combination of union participation and industrialization projects. This model, which endured for much of the 20th century, propelled Brazil to become a South American giant. Brazil sided with the Allied Powers during World War II, ultimately sending 15,000 troops to support the U.S.-led military campaign in Italy. Brazil was the only Latin American country to send military personnel to the battlefield. However, the relationship frayed after the US allocated most of its resources to Europe’s reconstruction under the Marshall Plan, leaving Latin Americans virtually unaided. 

    Brazil’s democratic rule came suddenly to an end in 1964, following a military coup that was encouraged and welcomed by the United States. The military government indirectly advanced U.S. interests in the region during the Cold War. For example, the dictatorship actively repressed urban guerrillas and targeted leftist leaders as part of what is known as “Operação Condor,” a secret multi-country counterinsurgency campaign carried out by several military governments in the region and backed by the United States. However, there was no direct coordination between Washington and Brasília; during the Cold War, Brazil sought to pursue an independent foreign policy to distance itself from the United States. This distancing approach became a characteristic element of Brazilian foreign policy for decades to come. The military regime in Brazil was highly repressive, killing more than 8,000 people and at least 434 political dissidents, and detaining and torturing an estimated 30,000-50,000 others. The military rule lasted for more than two decades, until the civilian rule was restored in 1985.

    Brazil’s record high inflation during the 1990s triggered political instability and culminated with a set of market-oriented reforms known as “Plan Real“. The government privatized many state-run industries and opened the Brazilian economy to foreign investment. In 2003, center-left President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expanded welfare programs and, by 2010, poverty rates had fallen from 28.2 to 13.6%. Although President Lula maintained a traditionally distant relationship with the United States, he became an important ally for George W. Bush, which was advantageous in a moment when the anti-American sentiment in the region grew, embodied by figures like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

    In 2008, as the U.S. economy shrank due to the global Great Recession, the Brazilian economy withstood the economic blow, catapulting the South American nation as a prominent voice in global macroeconomic discussions ever since. The result was an assertive Brazilian foreign policy that often soured relations with the United States during the center-left administrations of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. For example, Brazil’s decision to support Iran’s nuclear program was resented by Washington. The U.S. has also been hesitant to support Brazil’s membership to the United Nations Security Council. Conversely, Brazil criticized the U.S.’ role in Honduras’ 2009 political crisis, and expressed opposition to Washington’s embargo to Cuba and to the U.S.-Colombia security agreements. 

    After Brazil fell into an economic recession in 2014, and a series of corruption scandals led to President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, Brazilians elected Jair Bolsonaro. A far-right conservative, he has departed from his predecessors’ traditionally independent foreign policy by deliberately moving Brazil towards alignment with the U.S, especially during the Trump administration. Nevertheless, President Bolsonaro has proven to be a controversial figure. He defended the crimes committed by the dictatorial rule of 1964 and has expressed prejudice towards marginalized communities in Brazilian society. Bolsonaro has also been criticized for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, after the healthcare system collapsed. The death toll has surpassed half a million, only overtaken by the U.S. and India. Although the Brazilian president was among the few leaders who refused to recognize Biden’s electoral victory, he has expressed interest in cooperating with the new White House. 

    U.S. Strategic Interests:

    • Trade: Although U.S. trade relations with Brazil have been robust, (mutual trade amounts to $103.9 billion), they have been a major source of controversy. Unlike most Latin American countries, who have heavily relied on U.S. trade, Brazil has turned south and eastward by prioritizing trade through the Southern Common Market, or Mercosur (a free trade agreement between members of the Southern Cone) and the World Trade Organization. In fact, Brazil blocked U.S. efforts to establish a hemispheric-wide free trade agreement in the 1990s and 2000s. In addition, Brazil’s strong trade ties with China have led to animosity between Brasília and Washington. Brazil’s main trading partner is China, not the U.S. The Brazilian economy has benefited from accessing China’s populous market. Chinese presence in Brazil has interfered with U.S. interests in this country. For example, China’s imports of Brazilian soybeans are devastating the Amazon rainforest, threatening U.S. investments in environmental protection. China is also set to install a 5G network in Brazilian territory, a prospect that has raised concerns among the intelligence community in Washington, since intelligence sharing with Brazil might be less secure. Yet, trade with Brazil has given the U.S. a $12.2 billion trade surplus.
    • Military and security cooperation: Brazil has coordinated humanitarian assistance efforts alongside the U.S. military. In 2010, the Brazilian government began to work more closely with U.S. intelligence agencies by facilitating and sharing classified information. Intelligence cooperation was further strengthened in 2017 with the implementation of the Master information Exchange Agreement, which allowed both countries to pursue defense-related military technology. The U.S. has also appropriated $666,000 to train the Brazilian military and strengthen coordination efforts between both military forces, as well as selling Brazil military equipment worth $11.2 million dollars. President Bolsonaro aligned Brazilian defense strategy with the U.S., particularly during the Trump administration, which designated Brazil as a major non-NATO ally. The Biden administration has endorsed the designation. 
    • Environmental conservation of the Amazon: Because of its tremendous size and biodiversity, the Amazon rainforest plays a crucial role in regulating the globe’s climate. The Amazon Basin absorbs 560 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and holds 76 billion tons of carbon—an amount equivalent to seven years of global carbon emissions. The U.S. government has supported environmental protection of the Amazon since the 1980s. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has implemented comprehensive conservation programs through the establishment of the U.S.-Brazilian Partnership for the Conservation of Amazon Biodiversity (PCAB). The U.S. has also provided technical assistance to Brazilian authorities on fire prevention, and NASA offers close monitoring of the rainforests.

    • Human rights concerns: The U.S. Congress has expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S.-trained Brazilian forces strictly comply with human rights standards. In a 2020 report, the U.S. government also expressed concerns about the standing of human rights in Brazil under the Bolsonaro presidency, including extrajudicial killings of Afro-Brazilians at the hands of police, mass incarceration and inhumane imprisonment, extreme violence against journalists, Jews, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as violence and threats against environmental, indigenous and black activists. The killing of human rights defender Marielli Franco in March of 2018 shocked the country and revealed how hostile Brazil is to activists. A couple of years later, after the killing of George Floyd in the United States, the Black Lives Matter movement became widespread in Brazil, pushing back against police brutality and racism.
  • Failures and Successes of the UN

    Failures and Successes of the UN

    Introduction

    76 years and half a trillion dollars later, the international community is divided on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Overall, the UN has a positive international image but the partisan divide over supporting the UN has widened, particularly in the United States. The United States’ perception of the UN is important since the United States is the largest donor to the UN and accounts for roughly 20% of the UN’s collective budget. 

    Successes

    1. Material assistance: the United Nations provides a lifeline to millions of people across the world. The World Food Program provides food and cash assistance to over 80 million people. The United Nations provides aid to nearly 69 million displaced people who fled their home due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violations. Furthermore, UN agencies supply 45% of the world’s children with vaccines, saving an estimated 2 to 3 million lives each year from preventable diseases. 

    2. Human rights: the United Nations established the first comprehensive framework for human rights law. The organization defined human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together, these documents defined the rights to equality, free movement, education, religion, and asylum, along with many others. The UN also established mechanisms to promote and protect the rights it outlines. The Human Rights Council, composed of 47 representatives, conducts a review every four years where it assesses the human rights record of all UN member states and presents nations with recommendations. The Council recently came under scrutiny for allowing China to become a member following reports of flagrant human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the oversight bodies which are responsible for enforcing treaties after they are ratified. Although it is unclear whether recommendations and oversight result in legislative changes, the UN’s efforts at the very least create an international standard for nations to strive towards. 

    3. Decolonization: when the UN was founded in 1945, 750 million people lived in territories controlled by a colonial power. Less than 2 million people live under colonial rule today. A key feature of the human rights framework of the United Nations involves every nation’s right to sovereignty and self-determination. The General Assembly passed multiple resolutions on decolonization, including its landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and four International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism resolutions. The Special Committee on Decolonization regularly reviews the list of non-self governing territories and invites representatives from these territories to issue statements at its annual sessions. The UN played a major role in decolonization efforts following WWII and continues to provide a forum to discuss international objectives like decolonization.

    Limitations

    1. Enforcement mechanisms: a recurring criticism of the UN is its inability to effectively enforce mandates. The UN is only as effective as member states allow and members go to great lengths to ensure national sovereignty. Therefore, General Assembly resolutions are typically considered to be recommendations. The Security Council is able to enforce its resolutions by means of sanctions or military force, but any one of the five permanent council members can veto a bill so harsh mechanisms are not frequently used.

    2. Security Council inaction: the Security Council is tasked with taking action to maintain international peace and security, however the veto poses an obstacle to action. P-5 nations ultimately determine what conflicts constitute actionable threats to international peace and security by exercising their veto power. Unsurprisingly these nations have advanced their national interests since the Council’s inception. Following the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, the P-5 nations were in a deadlock. The United Kingdom, United States, and France presented a resolution declaring the Venezuelan election illegitimate and calling for new elections. Russia and China proposed a resolution condemning outside intervention in the election process and called for dialogue in Venezuela. Both resolutions failed and the deadlock delayed the delivery of critical aid. P-5 nations disagree on how most conflicts should be handled causing frequent inaction in the UNSC. 

    3. Western domination of UN institutions: despite its mission emphasizing inclusion and representation, the UN is typically viewed as a Western-oriented organization. From the UN’s inception, European and American interests have prevailed. One example is developmental aid. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are primarily responsible for coordinating economic development efforts while the UN provides guidelines for sustainable development and oversight. Together, they implement the UN’s economic development framework. Both the IMF and World Bank condition loans on neoliberal features like trade liberalization, private enterprise, and an overall reduction in public spending (i.e. the size of government). These practices were especially controversial during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the IMF conditioned loans on tight austerity measures like reductions in public health spending and unemployment benefits. 

    Peacekeeping: The Intersection of Success and Failure

    While the UN has successfully led a number of peacekeeping missions and promoting peace and security is integral to its mission, it failed to intervene in a timely manner and prevent genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Institutional shortcomings contributed to grave UN peacekeeping failures in both Rwanda and Bosnia. First, UN peacekeepers are held to a strict mandate to only use force in self-defense or to help evacuate foreigners. Second, the UN failed to train peacekeepers to negotiate with perpetrators of violence against civilians. Similarly, there existed a cultural disconnect between the training peacekeepers received and the reality of local communities. 

    More generally, peacekeeping is limited in that intervention requires the consent of the host government and other parties to the conflict which makes swift action more difficult.

    Future of UN Operations

    The UN is currently facing large financial constraints in light of the pandemic and the growing number of individuals in need of assistance across the globe. As of September 2020, member states only paid 60% of their contributions to the UN’s general budget. As a result, some UN-appointed human rights experts who work under the Human Rights Council were unable to carry out their mandate to monitor and address human rights abuses. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees operated with 47% of its $9.1 billion budget and cut back on programs providing emergency shelter, water, and food to refugees. UN operations as we know it are at risk if nations fail to bolster financial support for the organization. 
    Furthermore, the UN is still recovering from Trump’s presidency characterized by an isolationist approach to foreign policy. During the Trump era, the United States left the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), threatened to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and ended its commitment to numerous international agreements like the Paris Climate Accords. The UN heavily relies on the United States for funding and assistance with key programs. Although President Biden recommitted the United States to the UN, US reliability and credibility took a hit.

  • Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale with the creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose primary objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and to achieve international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, in regards to the creation of mutual arms control agreements and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles. The two nations would go on to engage in more than half-a-dozen nuclear-focused disarmament treaties, beginning in November of 1969 with SALT I which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. This is significant because it assures continued commitment to the regulation and limitation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, but it is also important in light of the upcoming review of the NPT that is anticipated to occur in August of 2021. Despite the success of the NPT over the past 50 years, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. 

    The New START treaty, which was signed on April 8, 2010 by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems as well as limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory, on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. New START entered into force on February 5, 2011, after both parties had signed and gained Senate and parliamentary approval in their respective governments, and both parties recently agreed to extend the treaty by five years in January of 2021. 

    New START provides invaluable national security information to the U.S. by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, as well as maintains an international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed. The U.S. and Russia have had contentious relations dating back to Soviet-era politics, and the constant imbalance between competition and cooperation perpetuates their struggle to coexist. START is significant for what it aims to achieve in terms of international arms control measures, but also because it is one issue that the U.S. and Russia have been able to work together and agree upon. Although bilateral relations have sharply deteriorated when it comes to other international security issues such as offensive cybersecurity, counter-space, and hypersonic weapons, nuclear non-proliferation remains an issue that the U.S. and Russia actively cooperate with.

  • Euromaidan: What Came Before, What Came After

    Euromaidan: What Came Before, What Came After

    Also known as the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ in Ukraine, Euromaidan began in November 2013 with civil protests in Kyiv demanding closer integration with Europe, and culminated in February 2014 with the ousting of President Yanukovych and the creation of a new government. The effects of the revolution are still felt in the region and globally today, particularly in relations between Russia and the West.

    Key Events

    Protests began when Ukrainian President Yanukovych suddenly and unexpectedly refused to sign a European Union Association Agreement due to Russian pressure. Ukraine and the EU had worked on the agreement for several years. Protests began because citizens demanded increased integration with Europe, but they soon shifted to call out corruption in the country. Ukraine ranked 144th globally in the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2013. The Yanukovych government was unable to discourage protesters, only making them more angry through the use of violence and anti-protest laws.

    Euromaidan came to an end when Yanukovych fled the country for Russia. This allowed a new government to take over, with Petro Poroshenko elected as the new president in May 2014. Shortly after Yanukovych fled and was officially removed from his position, Russia used demonstrations against the new Ukrainian government, along with the significant ethnic Russian population in the region, as justification to annex Crimea.

    Aftermath of Euromaidan

    Russian Annexation: since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine began, there have been more than 13,000 casualties, including over 3,000 civilians. Recent escalations of tensions between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the West, do not indicate that this conflict is likely to come to an end soon.

    EU Integration: the government that came into power following Euromaidan signed the EU Association Agreement in June 2014, and it came fully into force in September 2017. Many Ukrainians are optimistic that Ukraine will join the EU in the future.

    Russia, Ukraine, and the West: the two Ukrianian presidents since the revolution, Poroshenko and Zelensky, have weaker ties to Russia than past Ukrainian presidents. Both expressed future hopes that Ukraine will join the EU and NATO in the future. This has brought Ukraine and Russia, neighbors and longtime allies, into opposition. The conflict between Russia has also caused significant damage to relations between Russia and the West at a time when tensions are already high.

    Images from Euromaidan

    Photo source

    Photo source

    Photo source

    Photo source

    Photo source

  • Russian State Action Against Political Opponents

    Russian State Action Against Political Opponents

    There have been several opponents and critics of the Russian state whose deaths are believed to be connected to the Russian state. Russia tends to deny responsibility for actions against their political opponents, despite there often being a large amount of evidence linking them to the events. Their refusal to acknowledge responsibility makes it difficult to make a definitive statement as to what happened, and gives the Russian state plausible deniability on the world stage. It also allows for a lack of remorse – if no one can say for sure that they did something, then why should they apologize for it? The following examples are significant because they speak to the Russian Federation’s commitment to a leadership strategy which is entirely at odds with the United States and the rules-based international order. Dissidents and whistleblowers vanish and the government acts with impunity. The Russian Federation is not the only state to implement this strategy, but brazenly abducting political opponents, combined with Russia’s attacks on democracy in other countries, indicate the type of world and systems Russia aims to create.

    Here are a few significant examples of presumed Russian state action against political opponents:

    Anna Politkovskaya

    Anna Politkovskaya was a journalist who made much of her career reporting on Chechnya and was critical of the Putin regime. A 1980 graduate of the Moscow State University journalism school, Politkovskaya worked for several papers before she began to write for Novaya Gazeta in 1999—a newspaper known for its investigative reporting and criticism of the post-Soviet regime. 

    While writing for Novaya Gazeta, Politkovskaya conducted a series of trips into the warzone in Chechnya, and her reporting on the conflict angered the authorities, leading to her detention and expulsion from the region in 2001. Despite her arrest and the threats to her life, Politkovskaya continued to write on both Chechnya and the Putin regime, publishing articles in Novaya Gazeta, as well as multiple books, and receiving many awards for her work. 

    In September 2004, she believed herself to have been poisoned while on a flight to help with a hostage negotiation in North Ossetia. On October 7, 2006, she was found dead in the elevator of her apartment block in Moscow, having been shot repeatedly at point-blank range. There was widespread international outrage following her murder. 

    Multiple arrests have been made in the years since her death, but her former colleagues at Novaya Gazeta believe her case is not solved and the culprits have not been brought to justice. (Here is the original Russian article and video.)

    Alexander Litvinenko

    Alexander Litvinenko was a former FSB (successor agency to the KGB, approximately comparable to the American FBI) officer who was critical of the Putin regime. Originally an officer in the MVD (Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) beginning in 1980, Litvinenko was later recruited to join the KGB, and then became a part of the FSB.

    In late 1998, Boris Berezovsky (an oligarch and another suspected victim of Russian state action) accused several senior FSB officers of ordering his assassination. Litvinenko, along with four other officers, held a press conference in support of this claim a few days later. He was the only one to show his face. Following the press conference, he was dismissed from the FSB.

    In October 2000, Litvinenko fled to London, disregarding orders not to travel, in order to seek asylum, which he received on humanitarian grounds. He was convicted in absentia while in Britain on charges of corruption and sentenced to 3 ½ years in jail, but instead spent his time writing and cooperating with non-Russian security services (allegations he made included an accusation that Putin ordered the assassination of Politkovskaya).

    On November 1, 2006, Litvinenko fell suddenly ill after meeting with two former KGB agents. On November 3, he was admitted to a hospital, and his illness was later attributed to polonium-210 poisoning. He died on November 23. 

    In a statement released posthumously the next day, he accused Putin of being behind his poisoning. His widow also accused Moscow of orchestrating the poisoning, although she did not believe Putin was directly behind the order. A British investigation into his death, released in 2016, found that Putin had ‘probably approved’ the poisoning, and that the Russian state was involved, contrasting the Russian media belief that the murder was linked to Berezovsky, the oligarch.

    Sergei Skripal

    Sergei Skripal was a part of the GRU (Russian military intelligence agency) and a double agent for British intelligence in the 1990s and 2000s. He first served in the Soviet Airborne Troops before becoming a GRU military intelligence officer in the early 1990s. 

    While traveling for work in Spain in 1995, Skripal was recruited by British intelligence as a double agent. At this time he began to pass information to the British government, including, allegedly, the identities of over three hundred Russian agents. He was arrested in December 2004, convicted, and sentenced to thirteen years in a high-security facility.

    In July 2010, Skripal was released as part of a spy swap. He moved to the UK, from where he continued to provide assistance and information to various Western intelligence agencies.

    On March 4, 2018, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found on a park bench slipping in and out of consciousness. It was found that they had been poisoned by a Novichok nerve agent. Both Skripals survived the poisoning, though they were in critical condition for a significant amount of time.

    It has been reported that they are now in New Zealand under new identities, although this rumor is unconfirmed. When asked about the situation, Putin states that Skripal’s situation has been blown out of proportion, and that less attention should be focused on a traitor.

    Others

    These are not the only people believed to have been targeted by the Russian state. The most recent, widely publicized case is that of Alexei Navalny, who was poisoned in August 2020 – his case will be discussed in a separate brief. If you are interested in reading more, there are a few lists of other suspicious deaths and poisonings that many attribute to the Russian state.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Venezuela Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Venezuela Relations

    • Capital: Caracas
    • Population: 28.43 million (2019)
    • Government type: Federal Presidential Republic
    • President: Disputed between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó since January 2019
    • GDP per Capita: 1,739 US dollars (2020)
    • Majority Language/s: Spanish
    • Majority Religion/s: Roman Catholic
    • Global Freedom Score: 14 (not free)

    History of Relationship with the US

    Venezuelan relations with the United States began at the same time as Colombia within the united political entity Gran Colombia and, like Colombia, continued after secession from the block. From 1902 to 1903 European powers implemented a naval blockade against Venezuela due to outstanding debts that the government refused to pay back. Despite statements made by President James Monroe that maintained US intolerance for European intervention in Latin America, the United States did not choose to intervene or to aid Venezuela in this crisis. 

    In 1948, a military leader by the name of Pérez Jiménez staged a coup and took control of the Venezuelan government. Following the coup, foreign investment grew from US oil companies with support from Jimenez’s administration. Even though the US had a positive diplomatic relationship with this regime, the dictatorship was also responsible for the torture and disappearance of thousands of Venezuelans.

    Hugo Chavez’s presidency began in 1999 and he quickly became one of Latin America’s most notable leaders in the early 21st century. His presidency was of foreign policy interest (and concern) to the United States due to his socialist policies that were incompatible with US foreign policy goals in Latin America. His government assumed control of Venezuela’s oil fields from foreign corporations and implemented policies including raising royalties for foreign firms. These actions challenged US economic interests in Venezuela. Much to the US’ dismay, Chavez also formed a public friendship with Cuba, further distancing the US and Venezuela diplomatically. Chavez kept the United States at an arm’s length, even refusing military and economic aid at times. Relations with Chavez worsened following a brief coup in 2002 which allegedly received US support. Despite a tense and distrustful diplomatic relationship between Chavez and the acting US presidents, economic relations continued between the two countries, and the US continually bought Venezuelan oil throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. However, tensions worsened still under the Maduro presidency and since 2014 the United States has imposed strict sanctions against Venezuela, ceasing any oil trade between the two countries.

    Key US Foreign Policy Considerations

    Venezuela is in political, economic, and humanitarian disarray.  Thus, many US foreign policy concerns address this multidimensional crisis.

    In the late 2010s, the acting Maduro government made efforts to consolidate power, ultimately creating a contested political system with both Maduro and Juan Guaidó, leader of the opposition, laying claim to the presidency. The US, concerned with Maduro’s authoritarian leanings and human rights abuses, has supported Juan Guaidó as interim president in an effort to promote the return of free and fair elections in Venezuela. The political crisis in Venezuela has led to generalized violence and humanitarian disaster throughout the country. As a strong opponent to the actions taken by Maduro and his administration, the United States has also implemented a series of unilateral sanctions against those within the administration benefitting from US trade. Most notably, the US has implemented strict sanctions on the state-owned oil company which in the past has made up around 90% of Venezuela’s total revenue. Sanctions have not succeeded in pressuring Maduro’s government to give up control. US sanctions have also garnered widespread criticism due to their illegality per international law. According to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, sanctions are only to be implemented under UN Security Council decisions. There have also been concerns about the human impacts of these sanctions, which has further exacerbated the economic crisis within the country.

    However, the United States has also provided monetary assistance to aid Venezuelans experiencing the devastating effects of the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The humanitarian conditions in Venezuela are characterized by human rights violations (including alleged crimes against humanity perpetrated by Maduro and his supporters), a health crisis (collapse of the healthcare system and shortages in critical supplies), food insecurity, lack of access to fuel and electricity, and high rates of crime and insecurity. The United States government has allocated more than $1 billion dollars of aid to help Venezuelans both within the country and those living elsewhere as migrants. The US has provided monetary aid in order to fund programs geared toward improving quality of life for Venezuelans. Such programs involve improvements in access to basic necessities, such as food, water, and healthcare.

    As a result of the ongoing generalized violence and humanitarian crisis, Venezuela has been experiencing a mass exodus of its population as millions of Venezuelans flee to neighboring countries. Colombia and Brazil have been major destinations for many Venezuelans, due to their proximity as well as relatively open immigration policies, which also recognize most Venezuelans as refugees. The US has also seen an increase of Venezuelan migrants, which has also garnered controversy and criticism in terms of policies or lack thereof to provide refuge to Venezuelans who cannot return to their homes. President Trump refused to implement any sort of special protective status for migrants from Venezuela for the majority of his presidency, only implementing a Deferred Enforced Departure program for Venezuelans January 20th, 2021, the final day of his presidential term. The protections under DED were expanded by President Biden with the creation of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans already residing in the United States. This status, a measure taken in response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, further protects Venezuelans residing in the US from deportation and permits them to get employment authorization in the United States. Unfortunately, this status does not apply to Venezuelan asylum seekers who still experience immense difficulties in immigrating to the US.