"The US and Latin America’s “Troika of Tyranny""
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Providence
28 November 2018
Originally published:
https://providencemag.com/2018/11/us-latin-america-troika-of-tyranny-john-bolton/
“For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:14
National Security Advisor John Bolton gave a speech in Miami in early
November in which he labeled the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and
Venezuela as Latin America’s
“Troika of Tyranny.”
This statement is not particularly shocking as the Trump administration
has routinely criticized all three governments. Tense relations with
Managua and Caracas are to be expected, but utilizing this label for
Havana exemplifies the Trump White House’s freeze of the
Washington-Havana rapprochement that started during the Obama presidency.
The question that emerges now is: does Bolton’s speech signal a
drastic change in US foreign policy toward Latin America? Or can we
expect more of the same?
The Miami Speech
Bolton gave his speech at the Miami Dade College’s Freedom Tower on
November 1, during which he labeled the three aforementioned states as
the “troika of tyranny” of the Western Hemisphere. Followers of
international affairs will make parallels between this label and the
“axis of evil” term President George W. Bush utilized during his
2002 State of the Union address to describe the governments of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
The national security advisor stated that “
this Troika of Tyranny, this triangle of
terror stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua, is the cause of
immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability,
and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western
Hemisphere.” He added that “we will no longer appease dictators and
despots near our shores.”
As for country-specific remarks, when it comes to Venezuela Bolton
demanded that the regime release political prisoners, and he called for
new elections. The US official also supported new sanctions against the
government, arguing that “
the United States is acting against the dictator Maduro, who uses the same repressive tactics that have been employed in Cuba for decades.”
Regarding Nicaragua, the country became an international pariah due
to repressive measures the Daniel Ortega administration carried out
after
major protests exploded in April.
Hence, it comes as no surprise that Bolton demanded elections, or “the
Nicaraguan regime, like Venezuela and Cuba, will feel the full weight of
America’s robust sanctions regime.”
Finally, Washington aims to minimize contacts with the Cuban regime and “
will only engage with the Cuban government that is willing to undertake necessary and tangible reforms.” Even more,
Vox reported the US won’t allow American cash to reach Cuba’s military, security, or intelligence services.
What Is the Significance of Bolton’s Speech?
There are a number of issues worth mentioning regarding Bolton’s
speech. The most important is that Bolton stopped short of openly
advocating for some type of US intervention in Venezuela. As the
Miami Herald reports,
“Bolton said in response to questions after the speech that he doesn’t
expect the US military would intervene in Venezuela. ‘I don’t see that
happening,’ he said.” US politicians at all levels regularly attack the
Nicolás Maduro regime and call for drastic changes. For example, on
February 9
Senator Marco Rubio tweeted, “The world would support the Armed Forces in
#Venezuela
if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by
removing a dictator.” Hence, Bolton’s statements are not surprising.
Nevertheless, it is unclear how effective additional sanctions would be
given that the Maduro regime is firmly entrenched. The restraint on
talking about military intervention exemplifies how undecided Washington
is about how far it is willing to go to get rid of Maduro.
As for Nicaragua, the
hundreds of dead civilians, with even more injured and
arrested,
have made the Ortega regime an international pariah. Hence, it comes as
no surprise that Bolton critiqued Managua as well. Sanctions or further
diplomatic pressure on Nicaragua is a valid strategy, and at one point
back in June, President Ortega did flirt
with the idea of calling for early elections in order to appease
protesters. Nevertheless, the Nicaraguan government seems to be back in
control of the country as the protests have dissipated due to the
Managua’s repressive tactics. The anti-Ortega sentiment remains strong
in Managua and in Washington, but it is debatable how effective
sanctions would be (particularly given the fact that they have been
ineffective in toppling the Maduro regime in Venezuela).
Bolton’s comments about Cuba are also noteworthy because they
effectively put an end to whatever attempt at a rapprochement had
commenced during the Obama presidency.
Embassies in both countries reopened in 2015, and then-President Obama even met with
then-President Raul Castro in 2016.
But when President Trump came to power, he made it clear very quickly
that he was not interested in continuing to improve bilateral ties. The
mysterious attacks in 2017 that sickened US diplomas
in Cuba were the perfect reason for the Trump White House to switch to a
more aggressive stance vis-à-vis Cuba. Shortly after this event, The US
expelled a total of
15 Cuban diplomats.
If there was any hope that dialogue between the two governments could
commence once again, Bolton’s speech effectively ended it.
Final Thoughts
Will Bolton’s speech have some long-term repercussions? The remarks
were inflammatory and included plenty of quotable phrases and
statements, but it did not represent a change of US foreign policy
objectives. New sanctions are only to be expected regarding Nicaragua
and Venezuela; as for Cuba, improved bilateral relations seem utopian
once again.
The 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech will be forever linked to the US
invasion of Iraq that took place a year later. How will the “Troika of
Tyranny” remark be remembered a year from now?
—
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses
on geopolitical, military, and cybersecurity issues in the Western
Hemisphere. The views expressed in this article are those of the author
alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with
which the author is associated.
