Venezuela and DRC

[wiggin]

I think there's an element of viewing DRC as like a hornet's nest that no good can come from intervening over too.

Honestly, I feel the same way about Venezuela. It's an utter disaster.

Wait a minute, don't link those two things - I was speaking under different contexts. They're not part of the same argument. I was just expressing an understanding for a cautious approach to the DRC - I haven't researched or thought enough about it to have a real defensible opinion there.

I'm curious why you're still holding out on Guaido's legal justification. All the major powers in the Americas save Mexico have recognized him now on that basis, and Mexico is about non-interventionism rather than legal objections. Is it just because of the election=illegitimate assertion its based on, or is there something more? If the latter, can you link to any sources?

My apologies, I wasn't trying to conflate your two arguments.

As for the constitutionality of the move by Guaido, Noah Feldman summarized the issues best: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-regime-change

It's hard to argue that this meets the criteria under the relevant article.

While it could be sheer incompetence, I'm actually mildly inclined to think that Bolton did that on purpose. It seems like the kind of not-very-subtle and slightly petty way he has of flexing US muscles.

[Wraith]

As for the constitutionality of the move by Guaido, Noah Feldman summarized the issues best: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-regime-change

I don't buy it. His argument is basically that the election was legitimate, but there's some hand-waving here to make it seem like 3 arguments. He presumes that an impeachment has to happen, or Maduro must be proven incompetent, but that's not what's being claimed. The claim is that Maduro doesn't have any position to be impeached from. He's arguing the wrong topic.

They're both claiming to be the legitimate government. We can only really delay recognizing one or the other for so long, and why shouldn't we give early recognition to the one that appears to be legal? The one who seems to have the public mandate? Maduro's main advantage is that he has the guns, and I don't think we should be respecting that unless we have no choice.

While it could be sheer incompetence, I'm actually mildly inclined to think that Bolton did that on purpose. It seems like the kind of not-very-subtle and slightly petty way he has of flexing US muscles.

I wish I could be that optimistic.

IMO, Flexing isn't the right move right now. I think the right move here is to make a show of deference to Guaido. Talk about working with him and seeing what he wants to do. Offer to help set up and monitor the new elections for him, and of course some security help too if he wants it. This is better PR for us, it strengthens his position and makes more of the military likely to defect, and it still makes it clear we're not going to just sit back if he gets disappeared. Talking about military action without emphasizing Guaido's legitimate and recognized authority in the nation is only going to make the hawkish elements dig their heels in. This needs to be Guaido's show, and the US needs to just be tagalongs.

[wiggin]

I don't buy it. His argument is basically that the election was legitimate, but there's some hand-waving here to make it seem like 3 arguments. He presumes that an impeachment has to happen, or Maduro must be proven incompetent, but that's not what's being claimed. The claim is that Maduro doesn't have any position to be impeached from. He's arguing the wrong topic.

They're both claiming to be the legitimate government. We can only really delay recognizing one or the other for so long, and why shouldn't we give early recognition to the one that appears to be legal? The one who seems to have the public mandate? Maduro's main advantage is that he has the guns, and I don't think we should be respecting that unless we have no choice.

This is Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution:

Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.

When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of this constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

In the cases describes above, the new President shall complete the current constitutional term of office. If the President becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the last two years of his constitutional term of office, the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed.

The article is very clear about the potential circumstances under which the presidency becomes vacant, and an election that wasn't free or fair isn't one of them. Maduro hasn't died, or resigned, or been removed from office, he isn't disabled, he hasn't abandoned his position, and he hasn't been recalled. If the constitution had just said 'in the event the presidency is vacant, XXX' I'd be fine with a broad interpretation. But the article clearly enumerates the ways in which the presidency can become vacant. I'm obviously not a scholar of the Venezuelan constitution but on the face of it I find it hard to see the legal justification.

I wish I could be that optimistic.

IMO, Flexing isn't the right move right now. I think the right move here is to make a show of deference to Guaido. Talk about working with him and seeing what he wants to do. Offer to help set up and monitor the new elections for him, and of course some security help too if he wants it. This is better PR for us, it strengthens his position and makes more of the military likely to defect, and it still makes it clear we're not going to just sit back if he gets disappeared. Talking about military action without emphasizing Guaido's legitimate and recognized authority in the nation is only going to make the hawkish elements dig their heels in. This needs to be Guaido's show, and the US needs to just be tagalongs.

I'm not sure I was being optimistic. I wasn't saying Bolton was doing something wise, just that his 'slip' may have been intentional. The US has entered very dangerous territory in Venezuela. Fortunately Maduro hasn't tried to force the issue (he backed down on the embassy personnel) but I wouldn't say I'm optimistic things will stay calm-ish.

[Wraith]

The article is very clear about the potential circumstances under which the presidency becomes vacant, and an election that wasn't free or fair isn't one of them. Maduro hasn't died, or resigned, or been removed from office, he isn't disabled, he hasn't abandoned his position, and he hasn't been recalled. If the constitution had just said 'in the event the presidency is vacant, XXX' I'd be fine with a broad interpretation. But the article clearly enumerates the ways in which the presidency can become vacant. I'm obviously not a scholar of the Venezuelan constitution but on the face of it I find it hard to see the legal justification.

As I said before, the legitimacy of the election is an argument I can see, because that's not on completely solid ground.

The claim is that Maduro's presidency ended on January 10th, when his first term ended, because no legitimate election was held for the next Presidential term. The constitution doesn't need to specifically cite an illegitimate election, the Presidency was vacated on Jan 10 and no replacement was ever elected.

I'm not sure I was being optimistic. I wasn't saying Bolton was doing something wise, just that his 'slip' may have been intentional.

That's what I was referring to. I don't have enough faith in the competency of this administration to believe it was intentional.

[Aimless]

I don't buy it. His argument is basically that the election was legitimate, but there's some hand-waving here to make it seem like 3 arguments. He presumes that an impeachment has to happen, or Maduro must be proven incompetent, but that's not what's being claimed. The claim is that Maduro doesn't have any position to be impeached from. He's arguing the wrong topic.

That is partly the case being made by the National Assembly & Guaido, and much of the international commentary paints an incomplete picture due to the excessive focus on just the latest election.

In his WaPo op-ed, Guaido invoked arts. 233, 333 and 350 together, and Feldman's treatment of this construction is careless.

Art. 333 is alleged to oblige & grant authority to address the allegedly constitutional violations that led to 2017's constitutional crisis and consequent illegitimate acts, including the unconstitutional election:

Article 333: This Constitution shall not cease to be in effect if it ceases to be observed due to acts of force or because or repeal in any manner other than as provided for herein.

In such eventuality, every citizen, whether or not vested with official authority, has a duty to assist in bringing it back into actual effect.

Art. 350 is alleged to bolster & broaden this authority up to the point of disowning not only Maduro but also the bodies he and his party set up in an attempt to usurp the NA's legislative powers:

Article 350: The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.

Art. 233 does enumerate ways in which a president or president elect can become permanently unavailable to serve, but it also provides for Guaido's authority, as president of the NA, to temporarily assume the powers & obligations of the presidency:

Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.

When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of this constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the Executive Vice-President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.

In the cases describes above, the new President shall complete the current constitutional term of office. If the President becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the last two years of his constitutional term of office, the Executive Vice-President shall take over the Presidency of the Republic until such term is completed.

Feldman's position is that these provisions are not applicable because the President of the Republic has not become permanently unable to serve due to any of the enumerated reasons. This is a problematic view for two reasons. Firstly, the NA has previously declared that Maduro has, in effect, abandoned his position (through failure to fulfill the duties of the president): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-v...-idUSKBN14T2CP

Secondly, Feldman, presupposes that there is an elected President to begin with, which is questionable. In addition to the aforementioned declaration that Maduro abandoned his position in 2017, there are compelling allegations of constitutional violations involving every aspect of the latest election that would support the NA's position (based on the articles cited above) that the election--and Maduro's subsequent inauguration before a body with no constitutional authority to invest him with the powers of the presidency--must be viewed as illegitimate, and therefore disregarded. Feldman sees Maduro as one single President whose presidency has continued uninterrupted since 2013, even though he is in effect two Presidents, leading two consecutive presidencies (one which ended in conjunction with the election, and one which purports to have commenced after the election but is regarded as illegitimate). Under Feldman's reading, an unscruplous autocrat could, after being democratically elected once, retain power for as long as he lives, simply by disregarding constitutional protections for democratic elections. Oh, so this election wasn't legitimate either? Welp, I guess that means I stay in power until we can try again at the next election!

In addition to this, Feldman presumes that the part of art. 233 that grants the NA's President to temporarily assume the presidency requires the presidency to be vacated for one of the reasons enumerated in the preceding paragraph, which is not at all clear.

CSIS has published a series of articles on the recent developments that, together, present a somewhat different but more well-grounded take:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/venezu...tion-democracy (overview from Venezuelan jurist)

https://www.csis.org/analysis/venezuelas-road-recovery

https://www.csis.org/analysis/juan-g...erim-president

https://www.csis.org/analysis/strugg...pied-venezuela

As for the question of recognition, it should be remembered that 50 countries did not recognize Maduro to begin with.