Two years after a formal dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the opposition began, many are beginning to wonder how much more time is needed to declare the process a failure. But there is a perhaps more pressing question: how can this dialogue succeed if there is no clear plan to support the partial agreements that have already been reached in the process?
Hopes for a negotiated solution in Venezuela were high in August 2021, when representatives of the government of Nicolás Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition met in Mexico City. There they signed a broad agreement to start negotiations that, in the words of the signatories, can “establish clear rules of political and social coexistence, with absolute respect for the National Constitution.” The process was designed to help the parties reach a series of “partial agreements” that would build momentum toward a comprehensive agreement to restore democracy in Venezuela.
After more than a year of behind-the-scenes dialogue, the parties reached a significant achievement on November 26, 2022. Once again they arrived in Mexico City and signed a partial agreement that would channel some resources frozen abroad by the sanctions of USA to a fund that would be administered by the United Nations (UN). These funds would go toward prioritizing health care, nutrition, and restoring basic infrastructure, all of which are urgent needs contributing to a migration crisis that has forced more than seven million Venezuelans to flee their country.
This deal was celebrated as a “historic” milestone and received extensive media attention at the time. And for good reason. If implemented, this fund would represent a major boost for the humanitarian response to the crisis in Venezuela. The UN is requesting $720 million in assistance in 2023, of which only 18% (or $130 million) has been received to date, meaning there are still millions of Venezuelans in need of assistance.
However, more than eight months later, this fund still does not exist. The humanitarian deal, originally intended as the “short handle” in a series of growing deals that could end in a comprehensive deal before the 2024 presidential election, has stalled for a combination of factors.
After the agreement was signed, it took the US government six months to assure the UN that the fund could exist within the US financial system, thus minimizing the risk that creditors could seize it with legal claims against the debt of the US. Venezuelan government. This dealt a severe blow to the implementation of the agreement and raised doubts about its future. But in May 2023, US diplomats finally assured the UN that implementation of the deal could go ahead, finally giving it the green light.
Since then, the main obstacle to implementation has been internal UN bureaucracy. The organization is understandably concerned about the reputational risk of implementing an initiative that has drawn comparisons to Iraq’s controversial Oil-for-Food Program, a program that was plagued by mismanagement and corruption. However, UN transparency standards have improved significantly in recent years.
Given these strict standards, and in light of the interest on both sides to move forward with the UN framework, there is no excuse for delay. Postponing the implementation of the humanitarian agreement only serves the interest of the Maduro government, which has used this delay to try to reinforce its narrative that sanctions, and not years of mismanagement and corruption, are the sole cause of Venezuela’s economic collapse.
This is the main finding of our new report published by the Adrienne Arsht Center for Latin America (AALAC) from the Atlantic Council, in which we provide five key recommendations for the US government and UN diplomats to move forward with the implementation of the humanitarian agreement.
First, it is essential to recognize that the fund does not need to exist in order for sanctioned money to be channeled into the UN humanitarian response. There are large amounts of money in frozen assets held in financial institutions around the world that could be transferred to United Nations agencies efficiently and securely, even before the fund is established. The United States can and must make it clear that it is ready to do so by putting the ball in Maduro’s court.
There is also a need for a clearer level of coordination with the multiple stakeholders involved, including Venezuelan political actors, countries where sanctioned funds are frozen, and associated financial institutions, so that there are clear expectations on how to proceed. Support for the agreement and details of its implementation must be clearly communicated.
In parallel, the UN should be encouraged to build on its success in managing multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) over the last thirty years. While the Venezuela humanitarian deal is not without risk, the UN has built the necessary systems to manage these funding mechanisms with transparency and accountability.
The UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office currently manages close to 100 pooled funding mechanisms, representing more than 95% of all funds channeled through UN-administered programmes. This experience must be harnessed to ensure that this historic opportunity is not wasted.
In addition, the United States must ensure that valid legal claims by creditors do not impede assistance to the Venezuelan people. Some creditors have already manifested that they will not claim the Social Fund, a positive gesture that should be applauded. Ultimately, valid creditor claims must be addressed but kept separate from efforts to resolve the humanitarian crisis.
Finally, the US and international allies must commit to a coordinated communication strategy. the meeting of July of EU and Latin American diplomats with Venezuelan negotiators in Brussels, and the conference on Venezuela in Bogotá in April, show that when the international community is on the same page, it can send a powerful message in support of the negotiations.
The truth is that the dialog window cannot be left open forever. Maduro must understand that he faces significant costs if he leaves the table, and both the US and its allies must be ready to increase the pressure if necessary. But by the same token, ongoing negotiation efforts must be given every chance to succeed. Failure to implement this humanitarian agreement would not only mean less assistance for the long-suffering people of Venezuela, but would jeopardize the future of the dialogue process in Mexico City. In the interest of all those who advocate a peaceful and democratic solution in Venezuela, the fate of the humanitarian agreement cannot be left up in the air.
subscribe here to the newsletter from EL PAÍS México and receive all the key information on current affairs in this country
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
