As the crisis in Venezuela continues to deepen, it has reignited debate over whether the US government should seek a regime change. Some are more tempted to do so because they want to bring about a change in the socialist orientation of the Venezuelan leadership, but others have more parochial reasons such as protecting the interests of US and Western big business. The problem with a policy of regime change is that it deviates from the Westphalian principle of sovereign states’ sovereignty by making what happens within one country the business of foreign powers and their allies. It also overlooks two fundamental facts. First, imposed leaders must address domestic and external audiences. Taking actions that please one or the other often alienate the other. Second, the forcible removal of national leaders by foreign interveners can drive a wedge between them and their people.
What’s more, a large body of research shows that regime-change missions almost always fail to produce the desired outcomes. They rarely succeed in promoting better economic conditions or building democratic governance. They tend to generate civil wars, degrade respect for human rights, increase repression and draw the foreign intervener into lengthy nation-building projects that they never intended.
As the United States faces a growing threat from China, it should abandon regime change as a tool to advance its interests. Instead, it should rely on more effective tactics such as increasing support to labor unions and universities, exposing corruption through investigative reporting, and supporting local civic resistance to authoritarian practices.
About the Author
