Venezuela’s negotiations require international support – and realistic expectations

Venezuela’s negotiations require international support – and realistic expectations

 

Against the odds, there is once again movement toward negotiations in Venezuela’s forever-crisis. Last month, Venezuela’s two presidents – Nicolás Maduro, who claimed victory in deeply flawed elections in 2018, and Juan Guaidó, the young National Assembly president who assumed the “interim presidency” when Maduro tried to claim his second term — both suggested that a new round of talks would start this month. This week, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador confirmed they will be held in Mexico City, likely beginning on Aug. 13. Behind this movement is the shuttle diplomacy of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has led facilitation efforts for two and a half years.





By The Hill – David Smilde, Geoff Ramsey, Keith Mines and Steve Hege

Aug 12, 2021

This is not the first round of negotiations between the Maduro government and opposition, and many observers are understandably skeptical. There have been four efforts since 2014 – two involving mediation by regional presidents, one involving the Vatican, and that by the Norwegians from May to August 2019.

Success in this round of negotiations will require robust and clear backing from international stakeholders, most notably the United States, as well as realistic expectations. Instead of the equivocal support that was the case in 2019, the U.S. should seek to facilitate a Venezuelan-made solution. Instead of an overnight transition, which is unlikely and may not be sustainable, negotiation efforts need to aim for concrete benchmarks in a gradual transition — that is, a roadmap for the re-institutionalization of Venezuela’s democracy and a return to a pluralistic society where all political options have a place.

These recommendations come from our research on the four previous negotiation efforts, with special focus on the 2019 Oslo-Barbados process. Over the past several months, we have talked with all of the members of the two negotiation teams that participated in Oslo and Barbados, as well as U.S. and international officials active at that time. Asking participants in any negotiation why they failed seems like a recipe for mutual accusations. Indeed, there were many. But what most stood out to us was how much agreement there was.

All participants in the 2019 talks suggested that they had developed a degree of trust with opposing negotiators. They all agreed they actually made some progress on concrete elements of the agenda. They also all appreciated the efforts of the Norwegian diplomats and suggested they continue to be the best-positioned to facilitate future negotiations.

Both negotiating teams discussed the difficulty of dealing with their own hardliners. The Oslo-Barbados process was confidential and the two sides impressively refrained from public pronouncements during the negotiation. However, this also left the process without broad buy-in and support. Skeptics on each side abounded and they pounced on any setback as clear evidence of the treachery of their opponents, and the futility of negotiation.

Read More: The Hill – Venezuela’s negotiations require international support – and realistic expectations

La Patilla in English