Suchergebnisse

UPDATE: Claudia Sheinbaum, who hails from the ruling Morena party, won the Mexican presidential election by upwards of 60% according to reports from the Sunday election. She will be Mexico's first female president. It is also the highest vote percentage for a presidential election in the country's democratic history, according to Reuters. Morena also swept the legislative races, capturing more than two-thirds of a super-majority in both houses of Congress. Millions of Mexican voters will head to the polls this Sunday for what is likely to be a historic national election. With over 20,000 congressional and local positions up for grabs, it's the largest election in the country's recent history. The most closely watched race will be for the presidency, as the nation prepares to choose a successor to outgoing populist leader Andrés Manuel López Obrador.Claudia Sheinbaum is the frontrunner — the former mayor of Mexico City, she leads her opposition in the polls by 20%. A member of the ruling leftist Morena party, Sheinbaum is expected to continue many of her predecessor's policies. But as Mexico faces a persistent security crisis, the future hinges on how the next president will distinguish her approach from that of López Obrador. Analysts say that better cooperation with the U.S. will be critical, and that both countries need to refocus on structural reforms, rather than simply increasing militarization. Sheinbaum's win would be historic for Mexico, as it would make her the country's first ever female president. But whether she will be a break from the status quo remains unclear, as López Obrador's party and legacy loom large, says Aileen Teague, a professor at Texas A&M University and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft. "She's enjoying Morena's popularity and she is reluctant to break from López Obrador's support and his shadow," Teague said.This election ultimately represents a choice between continuity of the current government, or a return to a past government that many Mexicans remember as corrupt and ineffective, says Stephanie Brewer of the Washington Office on Latin America. Sheinbaum's primary opposition is Xóchitil Gálvez, who is representing a coalition of parties that includes the Institutional Revolutionary Party which had ruled for decades before López Obrador and Morena during an era marked by inequality, corruption and violence. It was under these conditions that López Obrador emerged and gained immense popularity, promising to advocate for the working class and promoting social and developmental programs aimed at reducing poverty."What many families tangibly perceive is that to vote for the continuation of Morena is a vote to secure the continuation of these types of programs which they may be directly receiving," Brewer said. Sheinbaum promises to continue López Obrador's policies, including expanding social programs and infrastructure projects and favoring state-owned energy production. She has also stated her support for a package of constitutional reforms López Obrador initiated in February, which analysts criticize for eroding checks and balances. The reforms would further militarize the National Guard, authorizing it to police, and redesign and even eliminate institutions, such as the autonomous Federal Judiciary Council and the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Protection of Personal Data.But there may be areas where Sheinbaum will differentiate herself from her predecessor, particularly in her approach to cooperation with foreign states.Part of López Obrador's identity as a president was his commitment to focusing on Mexico's domestic issues, Brewer said. "It's almost purposefully showing that he is not at all concerned about deepening cooperation with foreign governments."Sheinbaum has hinted at being more willing to engage on the global stage, as she has emphasized that Mexico should play a more active role in multilateral treaties to address the climate emergency, for example. This openness to cooperation will be an important difference when it comes to Mexico-U.S. relations, particularly in addressing security concerns that affect both countries. Drug cartels have sown deep insecurity in and outside of Mexico — there have been 360,000 homicides and thousands of disappearances since 2006, when former president Felipe Calderon ordered a military crackdown on the cartels. Compounding this crisis, Mexican drug cartels are the primary producers of fentanyl-laced opioids that flood into the U.S. and fuel the majority of deadly opioid overdoses that occur in the U.S. each year.The U.S. and Mexico have agreed to cooperate to address these challenges through bilateral agreements such as the 2008 Mérida Initiative, which has been criticized for its emphasis on militarization and limited success in reducing violence and crime. But relations deteriorated during López Obrador's term. He narrowed channels of cooperation and communication with U.S. officials and law enforcement after a former Mexican defense minister was arrested in Los Angeles in 2020. Tensions grew after Mexican authorities disbanded a DEA-trained anti-narcotics force that had worked with U.S. law enforcement for decades.Though mutual distrust imbues the current relationship, Teague says, that could change if Mexico's next president is more inclined to engage with foreign leaders. "There could be an opportunity for some renewed cooperation in the way that we haven't seen in the last two years," she said. Sheinbaum may do so, as she says her security policy will focus on improving collaboration and information sharing between police and security forces, which includes a more fluid partnership with the U.S. But agreeing to cooperate more closely won't be enough, Brewer says. "If that cooperation isn't directed at the right policies, it's not going to bring advances," she said. A more fruitful relationship will target the structures and systems that facilitate cartel activity and security issues. The crux of the issue, according to Brewer, is the pervasive impunity in Mexico. Cartels thrive by colluding with state officials, while only a fraction of crimes are reported, investigated, and punished."You can't militarily deploy your way out of that problem," Brewer said, and yet this is where resources and investment have been directed, as opposed to reforming the justice system and targeting corruption.It will also be critical for the U.S. to reconsider how it applies pressure to the Mexican government to respond to security threats, as Washington makes specific demands that make it difficult to take a holistic, productive approach to security issues, Brewer adds. The migration crisis serves as an example — Mexico's current policy stems from U.S. pressure to intercept migrants before they reach the border, resulting in measures that restrict migrant movement, such as imposing new visa requirements and increasing detentions and deportations. "Those are all not only harmful to the migrant and asylum seeking population, they're extremely counterproductive," Brewer says, as these policies do nothing to address what drives people to migrate.Beyond reshaping policy objectives, Teague says Washington needs to demonstrate that it is interested in improving bilateral relations with Mexico. "Not just interested in them whenever it's politically useful, or whatever a crisis comes up, but actually interested in establishing productive relations in the longer term," she said.How the bilateral relationship will evolve will be highly dependent on the outcome of not just Mexico's election, but the U.S.'s in November. What's evident is that both nations must embrace a new paradigm for their relationship.

Kenyan troops are expected to touch down in Port-au-Prince today, marking the start of a much-anticipated peacekeeping mission. Their arrival coincides with that of Kenyan President Willian Ruto in Washington, whose official state visit to the U.S., meant to strengthen bilateral ties between the U.S. and Kenya, continues today. The deployment of Kenyan troops aims to alleviate the escalating crisis that has gripped Haiti since the assassination of former President Jovenel Moïse in 2023. In the wake of Moïse's death, gangs have thrived in the ensuing political power vacuum, prompting acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry to resign in April and agree to the establishment of a transitional government brokered by foreign states, including the U.S.But with a fragile government established only a few weeks ago and no clear plan for the military operation, doubts linger about how effective the Kenyan force can be in addressing the dire situation. Analysts fear that this is yet another U.S.-backed mission that fails to address the need for deeper structural change in Haiti.While it may be Kenyan troops on the ground in Haiti, this mission is ultimately engineered by the U.S., Robert Fatton Jr., a professor at the University of Virginia, told RS. After all, it was the U.S. that co-sponsored a resolution in the United Nations Security Council requesting approval for Kenya to lead a multinational peacekeeping operation, a move that followed unsuccessful attempts to persuade Canada and Brazil to do so. Washington pledged its financial and logistical support for the mission in a defense agreement with Kenya signed in September 2023. It was then that Kenya committed to deploying 1,000 troops to Port-au-Prince. The mission is also expected to include about 1,500 soldiers and police officers from other countries, bringing the total size of the prospective intervention force to 2,500.This is an unprecedented model for a peacekeeping operation, says Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The U.N. is authorizing the multinational intervention but is not leading the mission itself, meaning the U.N. does not have direct oversight and responsibility for how the mission unfolds. With Haiti's transitional government still on shaky ground, it's not clear who will be held accountable for the mission's execution. The accord that outlines Haiti's transitional presidential council mandates that a national security council is formed to oversee and define how international support will be carried out, including the Kenyan troops' involvement. But this council still doesn't exist, meaning the outgoing government and the depleted Haitian police force are stuck managing how resources come into Haiti. "This is all a logistical coordination nightmare," Johnston says. "You have a mission ostensibly designed to support and build local capacity, but which is being done without the involvement of the government that those same international actors helped put in power."Potential shortcomings of the mission don't end there. The Kenyan troops are supposedly tasked to protect strategic sites in Port-au-Prince such as airports, the palace, and ministries. But it is unclear whether the forces are authorized to engage directly in combat, as well as if or how they will be integrated with the Haitian police force and military. Johnston says this is concerning given that these forces will be operating in densely-populated civilian areas. Fatton Jr. says the Kenyan forces will also face significant challenges when on the ground in Haiti. It is estimated that there are approximately 200 armed gangs operating in Haiti. Most of them are concentrated in Port-au-Prince, where 2 major coalitions have been fighting for control for years. Fatton Jr. says they are knowledgeable about the terrain, engaging in guerilla urban warfare that will be challenging for a stationary army to face up to. The gangs have also acquired a higher degree of autonomy that makes them harder than ever to control. They have built up streams of income to fund their activity through drug and weapons trafficking, as well as the capacity to "tax" people by using extortion and threatening punishment. The ensuing chaos and violence has caused hundreds of thousands to flee. The Kenyan forces will also be met with a language barrier, as they do not speak Haitian Creole, the most widely spoken language in Haiti, a fact that could badly undermine any attempts to communicate with gang leaders. The size of Kenya's force further casts doubt on its potential effectiveness. It is expected that only a few soldiers will arrive at first, and that number could eventually climb to 1,000. "I don't see how you can really re-impose a modicum of order in Haiti with 1,000 troops," Fatton Jr. said. This slapdash approach makes it clear that the timing of the mission has less to do with the situation in Haiti and more to do with Washington politics, Johnston says, as the U.S. and Kenya's collaboration on this mission is touted as a success for the U.S.-Kenya security cooperation. "This is about a symbolic victory for a high profile meeting," Johnston said. "If you were actually proceeding with a more reasonable approach to Haiti, you'd be coordinating with some entity on the ground."For all these reasons, experts argue that this military intervention is a short-sighted remedy to the broader crisis in Haiti. The current emergency is a result of deeply-entrenched inequality in Haitian society, an economic crisis, and an unaccountable government. Military interventions may quell violence for a limited time, but will do little to address its underlying causes. "We've seen this pattern repeat over and over and over again, whether it be through paramilitary groups locally, or foreign intervention. But ultimately, it is going to just allow this inherently unsustainable system to continue in place," Johnston said.Past foreign interventions in Haiti have been complete failures, as Fatton Jr. noted. Most notable is the U.N.-led MINUSTAH mission that lasted from 2004 — when President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown after being flown out of Haiti by the U.S. with assistance from Canada — until 2017. The mission not only brought a deadly cholera outbreak to Haiti, but failed to establish any institutionalized justice systems or prevent the re-emergence of gangs. The severity of Haiti's security crisis today may mean there is a role for the Kenyan military to play, though, Fatton Jr. says. As thousands of Haitians are killed and displaced by the violence, everyone wants to see something change. But the troops will need to be very effective once they arrive, he says, an outcome that is all the more difficult to picture given how unclear plans for the mission's are. "There's a very small window of opportunity for the Kenyans, to show that they can, in fact, re-establish a modicum of order," Fatton Jr. said. "If they can do that, then we'll see what happens."Editor's note, May 24 at 9:45 a.m.: This piece has been updated to reflect the total number of soldiers expected to participate in the U.N. authorized peacekeeping mission.

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin's victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share. If this continuation of Putin's 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it's that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.Since Russia's full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv's systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie. "There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021," Weiss said. "And so the urgent crowds out the strategic." Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine's sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided. "Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting," Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia's disposal far exceeds Ukraine's, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor. George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia's primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia's powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict. This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. "That means by definition, we have some leverage," Beebe says. To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West's interests, "one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there."In Kotkin's view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia's possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed. Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. "[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs," Beebe said. Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin. The U.S. rejected Putin's most recent statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. "Despite Mr. Putin's words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine," a spokesperson for the White House's National Security Council said in response. But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven't met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open. "Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not going anywhere," Weiss said.An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world's largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe's interests to reach a relationship "that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation," he says. As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.

Israel is ramping up its development of a strategic route that bisects the Gaza Strip, according to
new satellite imagery, which shows that Israeli forces have been modernizing two military outposts at the crossroads of key pathways Palestinians used to flee south in the earlier stages of the war.

This road, part of the so-called "Netzarim Corridor," runs east to west from the Gaza-Israel border to the Mediterranean Sea, just south of Gaza City. The Israeli army's Engineering Corps has been developing it since shortly after Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks.

Israeli officials say the corridor's strategic purpose is to make it easier for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to target Hamas' underground tunnel networks. IDF personnel have also
said the corridor facilitates military incursions in either direction and strengthens Israeli control over the movement of Palestinians, preventing them from freely moving north to south.

But, as an invasion of Rafah looms, experts say Israel's tightening grip over the flow of people and aid into northern Gaza risks exacerbating the already dire humanitarian crisis.

Israeli military forces were already able to control all movements of people and food in both directions since they began evacuating people from northern Gaza in October, said Lex Takkenberg, a former long-time official with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Near East Refugees (UNRWA)."What this move seems to be doing is further consolidating Israel's control over that de-facto separation of the Gaza Strip," Takkenberg said.

Takkenberg, who worked in Gaza for a decade as a top UNRWA official, says the choice of the corridor's location facilitates that control. It runs through Wadi Gaza, a river valley that is more difficult for people to cross and that acts as a natural border between the north and south of Gaza. It's also the most narrow part of the Strip.

"From a military perspective, it's relatively easy to control," said Takkenberg, who now works as a senior advisor at Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development.

The IDF's control will be even stronger as they forge ahead with the corridor's "buffer zone." By clearing terrain and razing buildings in the area surrounding the route, Israeli forces have tightened their grip over the corridor,
IDF personnel said.

This high level of control raises concerns for the humanitarian crisis that is already ongoing. Hundreds of thousands of residents of northern Gaza's have been
displaced since Israel ordered them to evacuate south of Wadi Gaza in October of last year. They now face devastating living conditions in southern Gaza, which will only worsen in the event that Israel invades Rafah, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to do.

If an invasion occurs, there is limited space for Palestinians if they are not permitted past the Netzarim Corridor, said Daniel Davis, a military expert and fellow at Defense Priorities. "If Israel truly does have a plan to relocate the over 1 million population prior to the attack, it's not clear where they would send them," he adds.

Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli
said in January that residents of northern Gaza will not be allowed to return until Hamas' underground infrastructure is demolished.

Israel's tight control over the corridor could also pose a risk for residents of northern Gaza facing food and aid shortages. If Israel has full control over what enters the north, it gives them the opportunity to block aid from entering, Takkenberg notes.

Aid shipments from outside of Gaza — regulated by Egypt and Israel — account for approximately two-thirds of food consumption in the Strip before the war began. Now, nearly the entire population relies on food aid to survive, according to the
World Food Programme. Shortages and delays in aid delivery in recent months have pushed Gaza to the brink of famine.

Aid might be able to enter both the north and south of Gaza via
a pier being built by the U.S., which sits just off the point where the Netzarim Corridor meets the coast. But how this aid will be distributed from there remains to be seen. Just yesterday, the staging area for the pier came under mortar fire, further fueling concerns that the plan could draw U.S. forces into the fighting.

The
IDF stated that the structures being built along the Netzarim Corridor are not permanent. Israel does, however, plan to keep them in place for the foreseeable future to carry out operations against Hamas. Regardless of whether the outposts stay in place, Israeli forces are unlikely to fully withdraw from Gaza, according to Davis.

"It is likely that a post-war Gaza will be even more restricted to Palestinian movement, far beyond just this one bisecting road," he said.

Russia announced this week that its bilateral trade with China has almost completely moved away from using the U.S. dollar, highlighting the two countries' commitment to reducing their reliance on the U.S.-led economic system.Aside from reducing dependency on the Western-dominated global currency, these 'de-dollarization' efforts allow Russia and China to avoid the myriad sanctions now preventing Moscow from doing business on the international market. Western sanctions have helped lead to a boom in trade between Moscow and Beijing since 2022, rising 26% to $240 billion this year. China has also become the world's leading importer of Russian oil.De-dollarization isn't the only scheme Russia is deploying to avoid crushing sanctions. Russian officials announced last week at a United Nations meeting that the Kremlin is spending billions of dollars to dodge Western sanctions by developing new trade routes in Asia.This plan includes two new transport corridors — one that would link Russia to Kyrgyzstan via the Caspian Sea, and another that would stretch from Belarus to Pakistan. The efforts build on previous plans to redirect trade, including the North-South Corridor, a railway route first conceived in 2000 that would connect Russia to the Indian Ocean via Iran. After years of delays, Moscow loaned Tehran 1.3 billion euros last year to build its leg of the North-South route. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's presidential envoy for environmental issues, said that the corridor gives Russia full access to the Persian Gulf, and that "no sanctions will affect it." The newly announced routes would similarly allow Russia to bypass sanctions and access Asian markets.Russia and Iran have also boosted their ability to transact with one another by linking their banking systems, as both face sanctions that limit their abilities to transact with the West. The U.S. and European countries have heavily sanctioned Russia since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, particularly hampering the Kremlin's ability to export oil to the West and sell it at competitive market prices. If Russia transports goods through overland corridors that are outside of the jurisdiction of the sanctioning countries, it becomes much more difficult for Western powers to interdict, noted Markus Jaeger of the Atlantic Council."They want to reduce the dependency and vulnerability vis-a-vis unfriendly third parties," Jaeger said.But if history is any guide, Russia isn't quite in the clear yet. Sanctions on Iran, including the maximum pressure sanctions imposed during the Trump administration, played a major role in slowing the development of the North-South route. Russia is now loaning money for construction to Iran and is expected to spend approximately $3.5 billion on the project by 2030, according to Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin.U.S. pressure has also complicated Russia's economic rapprochement with China, which could face consequences from the West for its support of Moscow, according to Jaeger. He pointed to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's planned visit to China this week, where he reportedly intends to warn Chinese President Xi Jinping that Washington is concerned about Beijing's provision of aid to Russia's military.Jaeger said that, as China engages more economically with sanctioned countries or entities in Iran or Russia, the risk of becoming the target of European and American sanctions will increase."For the U.S., imposing secondary sanctions that affect Chinese entities is seen as a very antagonistic step by China, which risks leading to further tensions in U.S.-Chinese relations," he said.

The Biden administration has reimposed economic sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry in response to President Nicolás Maduro's attempts to hold onto power by blocking candidates who want to run against him in the July elections.Maduro's government is clearly violating the conditions of the 2023 Barbados Agreement that it made with the Venezuelan opposition alliance Plataforma Unitaria Democrática in October and that stipulates that the government create conditions for free and fair elections. The U.S. conditioned its easing of oil sanctions on the Maduro government's compliance with this agreement. Experts say reimposing sanctions, however, is the wrong move. U.S. sanctions have already helped to cripple the ailing Venezuelan economy and exacerbated the country's humanitarian crisis. General License 44, which lifted the sanctions, has not been in place long enough to alleviate the strain on the economy or deter Maduro's regime, Michael Galant of the Center for Economic and Policy Research told RS. Analysts argue that the Biden administration should instead undertake a multilateral effort to facilitate negotiations among Venezuelan political leaders so that Venezuelans can take further steps towards democratization as they head into a pivotal election year. Re-imposing sanctions will just be a step backward.The sword hanging over Venezuela's headThe U.S. has imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuela since 2005. But the Trump administration expanded them beginning in 2017 as part of a "maximum pressure" campaign against the Maduro government for alleged corruption and human rights abuses.
Trump's sanctions prohibited oil sales between the U.S. and Venezuelan oil companies. Given Venezuela's dependence on producing and exporting oil, the sanctions drove Venezuela's economy toward collapse, Galant said.
"There were already significant economic challenges, but there are very clear inflection points in Venezuela's oil output at the moment that additional sanctions are imposed," he said.
The impact on Venezuelan society and economy has been disastrous. Shortages of basic goods and a climbing cost of living have plunged much of the population into poverty and drove more than seven million citizens to emigrate, most of them to neighboring countries and the United States.
The Biden administration eased these sanctions after the so-called Barbados Agreement between the government and the opposition coalition was signed. But while reimposing sanctions could have drastic consequences on Venezuela's economy and people, Galant adds that the waiver's impact should not be overstated, as the relief it has provided has always been limited. Years of sanctions have deterred foreign investment in Venezuela and hampered the country's capacity to produce oil.
"There's always been this sword hanging over [Venezuela's] head, the fact that sanctions could be reimposed at any time," he said.
Certain kinds of sanctions can be effective in holding specific individuals, including government officials, accountable for corrupt practices and human rights abuses, said Carolina Jiménez Sandoval, president of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). But these differ from sanctions on the entire oil sector, sanctions that affect Venezuelan society as a whole, but have failed to deter Maduro's regime from committing human rights abuses and engaging in corruption.
Reimposing all sanctions means returning to a status quo that doesn't work, Jiménez Sandoval said. "That means you need to craft something different."
An electoral year in Venezuela provides a window of opportunity for the U.S. to proceed with a new strategy, she said, adding that it should be one that does not return to economic coercion in hopes that Maduro will change and that instead focuses on facilitating opportunities for Venezuelans to exercise their vote freely and fairly in July. A window of opportunityA primary election last October suggests Venezuelans are ready for major change, with an overwhelming majority of the more than two million participants voting for the opposition leader María Carina Machado. But a new opposition candidate will need to take Machado's place after Venezuela's highest court upheld a decision to bar her from running in the July general elections, alleging she committed fraud and supported U.S. sanctions.
The question now is whether the opposition can unite behind a single candidate, said Miguel Tinker Salas, a professor at Pomona College and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute. The opposition has been divided for years, making it difficult for the population to rally around a single challenger to Maduro.
Given Washington's close ties to the opposition, the Biden administration may be able to play a role in facilitating negotiations among the various factions to settle on one candidate who can rally the support of all, according to Jiménez Sandoval. "Because [the U.S.] has been their ally, it also has leverage over them," she said.Selecting candidates thus far has largely been confined to the political elite in Venezuela, says David Smilde, a senior fellow at WOLA who teaches at Tulane University. He takes a similar view that the U.S. can take advantage of its influence with the opposition. But he also advocates incorporating civil society into those negotiation processes to move Venezuela in the direction of a more democratic society.
These efforts have also involved Venezuela's neighbors. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whose country has been most affected by the outflow of migrants from Venezuela, met with Maduro before sitting down opposition candidate Manuel Rosales in Caracas just last week, the same day that the U.S. officials sat down with members of Maduro's administration in Mexico to discuss possible democratic reforms.
Reports indicate that Rosales has been "approved" by Maduro to run against him and that the meeting with Petro had Maduro's blessing too. However, Tinker Salas says the culmination of diplomatic pressure from other Latin American countries carries significant weight nonetheless.
"It has become clear that the entire region has high stakes when it comes to bringing democracy back to Venezuela," Jiménez Sandoval said, noting concerns that the U.S. and other leaders in the region have over increased migration of Venezuelans and more recently, whether Venezuela will escalate its claims to the disputed oil-rich Essequibo region in Guyana by engaging in armed conflict.
Tinker Salas adds, however, that the issue of Essequibo has long been raised by Venezuelan politicians hoping to harness nationalist sentiment to garner more political support. Maduro's recent moves on the issue, experts say, is mostly likely politically motivated, as opposed to being a real threat of invasion.
The effects of the political crisis in Venezuela are not confined to within its borders, and how political actors in and outside of Venezuela and Venezuelan civil society will come together by July election remains to be seen. But Galant insists that Washington's path forward should be one that focuses on facilitating diplomacy rather than proceeding with more sanctions, highlighting the importance of the humanitarian emergency above all.
"That outweighs the other questions. That needs to be what is held at the core of any discussion of broad economic sanctions, is understanding that this is harming millions of people," he said.

The White House is rolling out the red carpet for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for meetings with President Joe Biden followed by a state dinner Wednesday. The pair will be joined Thursday by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for the first ever trilateral summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.The summit is a significant step up in cooperation between the states, as the leaders look to increase their economic cooperation and collaboration on technological development. But the real show is all about security in the Indo-Pacific, as China becomes more assertive in its claims over disputed territories in the South China Sea and North Korea steps up its missile testing in the region. As the trio works to bolster security in the region, they'll face the daunting task of balancing military efforts with diplomatic overtures needed to keep tensions with China in check, experts say. Improving U.S.-China relations will stabilize the situation, Mike Mochizuki of George Washington University said, adding that "focus on military deterrence is likely to cause China and North Korea to then respond in such a way [as] to beef up their security interests."A step up for U.S.-Japan relationsMochizuki, who is also a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, told RS that Biden and Kishida are expected to discuss ways to further increase their military cooperation, an effort that has been expanding incrementally for the last few decades.Japan maintained restraints on its defense spending and development for decades after the end of World War II, keeping in line with its pacifist policies. But by the 1980s, Japan began relaxing those restraints to collaborate more with the U.S. on shared security interests, an effort that has continued to the present day.Japan has since been building up its defense capabilities, acquiring new weapons systems and reinterpreting the constitution in 2015 to expand Tokyo's ability to use force in defense of its allies such as the U.S. The result has been the most significant increase in Japan's military capabilities since World War II, and a deepening of U.S.-Japan relations, Mochizuki said."This was a categorical leap," he said. "This summit is in a sense a celebration of this shift."Biden and Kishida are expected to announce plans to further strengthen their defense cooperation and production, which includes plans for the creation of a bilateral council that will be consulted on points of collaboration.The U.S. will also reportedly appoint a four-star general to command U.S. Forces in Japan, which are currently led by a three-star general, a rank with less authority in dictating operations. The upgrade would empower U.S. Forces in Japan to make more strategic decisions and carry out military exercises, allowing for a more unified U.S.-Japan command.The summit also marks a strengthening of relations between the U.S. and the Philippines. The U.S. has become more closely aligned with the Philippines since Marcos Jr. became president in 2022, cementing a noticeable shift from predecessor Rodrigo Duterte's position on Washington.The U.S. and the Philippines are allied by a mutual defense treaty. So while the U.S. has maintained a military presence in the Philippines, China's increasingly hostile actions against Philippine vessels in the South China Sea have prompted closer collaboration between the two countries. In 2023, Biden and Marcos Jr. announced a pact that would give the U.S. access to additional military bases on the islands as tensions in the surrounding seas mount.The threats have become increasingly apparent in the Second Thomas Shoal, a waterway that China claims as its territory but that falls within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, established by the U.N. Convention On the Law of the Seas. In response to recent attacks on Philippine boats in the shoal, the U.S. and Japan have stated their support for the Philippines, and Manila has warned Beijing that it is prepared to take actions that are "proportionate, deliberate, and reasonable."Biden will meet with Marcos Jr. separately on the second day of the summit. In a statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said they will discuss how to "expand cooperation on economic security, clean energy, people-to-people ties, and human rights and democracy" as well as reaffirm "U.S. commitment to upholding international law and promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific."China's 'deep suspicion'Experts worry that the summit risks escalating tensions in the region if too much emphasis is placed on military deterrence as opposed to diplomacy. If the U.S. and its allies continue to bolster military activity in the region, especially in the South China Sea and near Taiwan, China could perceive this as a threat, said James Park, a research associate at the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft."None of these alliances directly say, 'these are intended to deter Chinese invasion of Taiwan,'" Park said. "But from China's perspective, China has to be looking at these developments with deep suspicion."These security concerns are clearly a motivation for the meeting, Mochizuki argues. The U.S. and its allies, he says, are signaling to potential adversaries — including China, North Korea or even Russia — "that the United States remains committed to the security of the region, that various allies and like-minded countries are stepping up to the plate to contribute more to security."The tripartite structure of the summit solidifies a shift from past U.S. policy. Previously, the U.S. maintained a series of bilateral partnerships with states in east Asia. But for the past few years, the U.S. has engaged in trilateral meetings such as this one that pull countries together as more of a network. In 2022, Biden hosted a trilateral meeting with Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. In 2021, the U.S. formed the AUKUS trilateral security partnership with the United Kingdom and Australia to develop defense interests in the Indo Pacific.While the efforts create positive possibilities for collaboration, Mochizuki says the region could face further divisions if these networks of alliances do not place more emphasis on diplomacy with countries they have tensions with, such as China."The net effect of this is not so much a stable peace, but a deepening geopolitical divide between the U.S.-allied network on the one hand, and China, North Korea and Russia on the other hand," he said.Mochizuki says more emphasis on de-escalatory diplomacy is needed to bolster cooperation. For the U.S. and Japan in particular, this means being careful to not signal any shift from the long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" under which Washington balances China-Taiwan tensions by suggesting that it may defend Taiwan in case of an invasion without ever committing to do so. This careful equilibrium aims to deter both Chinese aggression and any sudden Taiwanese effort to declare formal independence.Park adds that preventing escalation will require making repeated assurances to China that the U.S. will adhere to its support for the One China Policy that was agreed upon when Washington and Beijing normalized relations in the 1970s. U.S. officials will also have to be careful to not contradict those assurances with their actions, Mochizuki added, citing then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan in 2022 as an example. "That was highly provocative," he said.The U.S. has made progress on that front by meeting with Xi, "but that was just the beginning," Mochizuki said. "There still needs to be a lot more work done to actually improve U.S.-China relations."

On the day the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller deflected press questions about whether the U.S. would compel Israel to comply by saying that the resolution was "non-binding."He went on to say that "it's nonbinding in that it does not impose any new obligations on the parties, but we do believe it should be respected, that it carries weight, and that it should be implemented, as has always been our belief when it comes to UN Security Council resolutions."Contrary to the U.S. position, U.N. ambassadors from China and Mozambique, as well as the UK's former U.N. envoy, have publicly stated that it is binding, along with U.N. Secretary General spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law, so to that extent, they are as binding as international law is."The resolution, which passed last week with 14 votes in favor and one abstention from the U.S., primarily demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and guaranteed humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.Resolutions are formal expressions of the will of the Security Council and are backed by the power of international law. Experts who spoke with RS counter the U.S. position, saying that implicit in the resolution is an obligation for the parties involved to comply. Meanwhile, they say it is understood that member states, collectively or on their own, can take measures that will compel parties to comply. More importantly, experts complain that Washington appears to be selectively interpreting international law to favor its political objectives — in this case to protect Israel — an action that could have consequences for its legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world moving forward. International law scholar and Yale Law School professor Asli Bâli said Article 25 of the U.N. Charter suggests that all the council's decisions are to be deemed binding. It states that U.N. members "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Some argue that this passage only applies to resolutions that reference Chapter 7 of the charter, which outlines the powers the council has to respond to security threats. Bâli disagrees, citing a 1970 decision from the International Court of Justice in which the justices agreed with the broader reading of the U.N. charter.Another dispute over what constitutes a binding resolution has to do with what language is being used. Eran Sthoeger, a lawyer and adviser on international law, says that along with clear reference to Chapter 7 and Article 39 of the charter, which empowers the Security Council to assess threats to international peace and security, the Security Council uses the term "decides'' when it wants to be clear that a resolution is binding. Since none of these elements are present in the ceasefire resolution, it should not be considered binding on members, Sthoeger argues. However, international law scholar and Washburn University Professor Craig Martin told RS that, while this resolution does not use the exact word "decide," the language of making a "demand" similarly creates an obligation on member states."It's hard to understand how anyone could suggest there is any ambiguity or uncertainty of the obligation this creates," he said.Bâli cites previous resolutions passed by the council that demonstrate that the use of the word "decide" is not needed for a resolution to be treated as binding and enforceable. One example is Resolution 678, passed in 1990 in order to provide Iraq with a final chance to withdraw forces from Kuwait, in which the council "demand[ed] that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions." Iraq's failure to comply with that resolution triggered military action from member states, led by the U.S.Ian Hurd, a professor at Northwestern University who focuses on international law, said retroactive disputes over whether the resolution is binding are reflective of the U.S. attempting to interpret international law in a way that advances its interests."The U.S. is trying to split the difference between its friends and its enemies and find its own advantageous path," Hurd told RS. Bâli adds that the U.S. claiming the resolution is non-binding means that it can defend supplying arms to Israel. The U.S. position is not without potential consequences. Washington's insistence that this resolution is non-binding in the face of well-established interpretation of charter provisions and Security Council precedent "is once again eroding the normative power of the international legal system," Martin said, adding that it contributes to a growing perception that international law is an instrument of political power for the U.S. and its allies.By abstaining on the ceasefire vote, Hurd says, the U.S. nonetheless increased its pressure on Israel to protect civilians and to follow humanitarian law in Gaza. How the U.S. responds if Israel does not comply with this resolution will reveal whether Washington intends to take a firmer stance on this issue, or not.

Political outsider Bassirou Diomaye Faye will officially be declared the next president of Senegal Friday after cruising to victory in this week's elections just 10 days after being released from prison.Faye won 54% of the vote, allowing him to avoid a second round matchup with former Prime Minister Amadou Ba, the Dakar Court of Appeals announced Wednesday. Ba has conceded defeat and congratulated Faye, as has current President Macky Sall.Experts say the peaceful transition of power is a welcome indication of stability in Senegal and a positive sign for West Africa as a whole amid a string of coups that have rocked the region's relations with Western countries.Senegal's democracy, analysts say, came under threat last month after Sall made a controversial decision to postpone elections, citing corruption allegations against the Constitutional Council that decides which candidates are eligible to run in the elections, a fact he said would question the integrity of the results. The decision drew public outrage, as well as concern from the United States, a historically close diplomatic partner with Senegal. The U.S. State Department said last month that it was "deeply concerned" about the postponement in a statement urging Senegal's government to "move forward with its presidential election in accordance with the Constitution and electoral laws."It was the first time an election has been postponed in Senegal's history, and Sall's actions were "a jolt and a shock to the system" due to Senegal's long-held position as a stable democracy in West Africa, said Dr. Joseph Siegle, director of research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies. Senegal has historically promoted democratic norms, free speech, opposition party participation, and security in the region, Siegle said. It's a stark contrast to surrounding states in the region — military coups have destabilized the governments of neighboring Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Guinea in recent years. Siegle said the recent election reiterates Senegal's role as an exemplar of democratic leadership in the region."Senegal provides a very important counterpoint that this is how you realize change. You do it through legal means, through constitutional means, through transparent means," Siegle said. The election was also a significant indication of the strength of Senegal's democratic institutions, as the judiciary promptly interpreted the constitution and rescheduled the elections in response to the postponement, said Adele Ravidà, senior election systems advisor and country director for Senegal at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. She added that, given that these events were unforeseen, the judiciary's actions created a precedent that increased its capabilities to respond to incidents of instability. "This was the strength of the judiciary in Senegal, the fact that even in a situation in which there is no law, that they can find a solution to the situation," Ravidà said.Faye's presidency could bring about further strengthening of Senegal's democratic institutions. Faye has campaigned on an anti-establishment platform, stating that he plans to reduce corruption in the government and strengthen checks on presidential power. Ravidà says it is still early to say what the potential of this new government is in fulfilling these claims. Siegle said Faye's policies may be cause for cautious optimism that democratic norms will be further bolstered. "That's encouraging, and given the strain to some of these norms we've seen in the last couple of years, that's welcome and would be much valued across Senegal," he said.Ravidà added that the election demonstrates the power of civil society in mobilizing to enact change."[The Senegalese people] are giving the chance now to this new generation of leaders to show if they can really rule the country well. But the population is mature enough to consider that if they are not doing well, in the next five years they give the opportunity to another party or a different leader." President Biden congratulated Faye for his victory in a statement on Wednesday. In a press conference on Monday, U.S. State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller said "the commitment of the Senegalese people to the democratic process is part of the foundation of our deep friendship and strong bilateral ties."Faye has iterated his intention to continue to maintain Senegal's bilateral partnerships with its diplomatic partners. The U.S. currently maintains close military ties with Senegal, Siegle told RS. The countries' militaries are partners in peacekeeping operations in the region, with the U.S. supplying aid and deploying troops to Senegal to help counter crises in the region.Faye will be officially declared the next president of Senegal on Friday, in the event that no complaint against the electoral process is filed by Thursday night, an event Ravidà says is not anticipated. The official transfer of power will take place on April 2, the day Sall's presidential mandate ends.