The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Insert Mooch Pun Here

After an illustrious 10 days as President Donald Trump’s communications director (sort of), Anthony Scaramucci is officially out. Sources close to Trump have explained that his remarks to various news outlets–including Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker–”disgusted” Ivanka and Melania Trump. Newly minted White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told Scaramucci on Monday that his services were no longer needed as one of his first tasks on the job.

Twitter had an absolute field day, mocking Scaramucci’s incredibly rapid rise and fall.

I’m still laughing at the fact that Mooch was fired before his official start date. Only WH staffer in history to serve for negative days.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 1, 2017

gotta add “scaramucci” to the dictionary as a measure of time

— Desus Nice (@desusnice) July 31, 2017

These constant staff shake-ups have marred the White House in recent weeks, so insiders are hoping that Kelly will be able to chart a smooth course moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro puts together plans to rework the country’s constitution, widespread protests have popped up across the South American nation. Most notably, a 24-hour general protest is planned for Thursday to show Maduro the national mood as it reaches a crucial crossroads. 

Maduro has never been particularly popular, but protest tactics have ramped up recently due to his plans to rewrite the 1999 constitution, removing some democratic principles. The first step is a July 30 vote for a “constituent assembly” that would modify the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

The overhaul would give Maduro new powers and potentially extend his term. Maduro’s term is set to end in 2019, but the assembly could vote to remove limits completely. After almost three years of conflict, many view this as Maduro’s final step in achieving a dictatorship.

According to an earlier survey, 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose changing the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier this week Maduro’s opposition organized a referendum as a sign of protest to show the government how they felt. The results were overwhelming: of the 7.6 million surveyed, 98 percent rejected the government’s plans and urged officials to uphold their democratic principles.

“People will be disappointed if they expect the government to react directly to the results [of the referendum] or change anything,” said Luis Vicente León, a political analyst and the director of the Datanalisis polling agency, told the Washington Post. “More than 7 million people participated actively in an act of civil disobedience and ignored the government’s allegations that it was an illegal one.” Officials from Maduro’s party–the Socialist Party–immediately dismissed those results as inflated due to some citizens allegedly voting twice, but never offered evidence to support that allegation. 

Anti-Maduro protesters have stuck by their values despite the consistent threat of violence against them. Just recently a gunmen fired outside a police station, killing one citizen while injuring four others, according to the Washington Post.  At least 92 people have been killed in three months of clashes between protesters, opposition, and police forces.

The distaste for Maduro’s regime began around 2014 when oil prices began to drop and the Venezuelan economy began to falter, according to the CIA Factbook. The economic crisis left millions of citizens impoverished and hungry. Many began to seek asylum; many of those who couldn’t leave became fierce opponents of Maduro.

Even President Donald Trump spoke out against Maduro. In the past Trump has praised dictatorial, powerful leaders like Vladamir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, but he came down hard against Maduro. Trump warned of economic sanctions if Maduro’s aims are realized and added that the Venezuelan leader is “bad leader who dreams of being a dictator,” according to Al-Jazeera. 

Still, Maduro vows that he will not change his course of action. He implored his opponents to “sit down to start a new round of dialogue” with his representatives, according to Al-Jazeera.

The 24-hour strike was organized by the Democratic Unity coalition and leaders say that they hope to bring the country’s operations to a standstill by urging businesses, restaurants, and workers nationwide to cease working. Those leading the opposition view the strike as a last-ditch effort to save their country from a looming dictatorship. They believe if they don’t succeed that Venezuela will have its democratic principles discarded and replaced by a dictatorial leader. 

Maduro was handpicked to run the nation by Hugo Chávez in 2013 and then elected later that year in a vote that drew praise from “Chavistas” and sorrow from opposition. So, there is some dispute over whether or not his election was legitimate. 

The coming weeks will decide the course of action that Venezuela’s future takes and will also dictate possible international reactions or interference. So far the issues in Venezuela have been overshadowed by larger world events, but if Maduro succeeds with his power grab, it may be time for international attention.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massive Protests Planned Against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Law Street.

Clay Higgins, Did You Seriously Think This Was a Good Idea?

Somehow, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins thought filming a video for his re-election campaign inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz was a good idea. Higgins is no stranger to controversy: last month he said that the U.S. should hunt down and kill all Islamic terrorism suspects. In the video clip, he talked about the importance of homeland security and making sure the country is safe from “the evils of the world.”

Negative reactions were swift. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum denounced the video, tweeting that the concentration camp is “not a stage.”

Everyone has the right to personal reflections. However, inside a former gas chamber, there should be mournful silence. It’s not a stage. https://t.co/AN5aA1bYEU

— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) July 4, 2017

Some people questioned whether Higgins was aware of the context–the brutal genocide propagated by the Nazis was not an external threat but an internal one. One Twitter user wrote that Auschwitz should also stand “as a reminder of what demonization of people by the state can lead to.” The U.S.-based Anne Frank Center denounced the video in harsh terms, calling it “a global disgrace.” Yesterday, Higgins apologized and said that his intent was to remind people that evil exists, which most of us are all too aware of already. “I have retracted my video…and my sincere apology for any unintended pain is extended,” he said in a statement.

DISGUSTING. @RepClayHiggins your infomercial at Auschwitz a global disgrace. Apologize. Get sensitivity training or a new job. #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/ddjf7EhwMc

— Anne Frank Center (@AnneFrankCenter) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Cyber Attack on Multiple Countries…Again

Another massive cyber attack has made it to multiple countries. The attack is believed to have originated in Ukraine. The ransomware has affected an estimated 64 countries so far, and is mainly targeting businesses. Infected computers show a message saying that all files have been encrypted. And just like the earlier ransomware attack in May, these hackers demand ransom payments in the form of Bitcoin to unlock the owner’s data. According to cybersecurity experts, this type of ransomware has never been seen before.

However, experts reportedly found a “vaccine” against the ransomware early this morning, that could cure individual infected computers. But they still have not found a kill switch, which would stop the computers from spreading the virus to others. Now, everyone is wondering who is behind the latest hack, and why. Some say it could have political motivations or that the hackers just want to cause widespread disruption. But because Ukraine was hit the hardest and its main antagonist is Russia, many people suspect the Kremlin is behind it.

The fast-spreading Petrwrap/Petya ransomware sample we have was compiled on June 18, 2017 according to its PE timestamp. pic.twitter.com/CHUYvsiQ08

— Costin Raiu (@craiu) June 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Venezuela has been plagued by political unrest and protests since April. Last month, a prominent opposition politician who often joined members of the public in the protests, Wilmer Azuaje, disappeared without a trace. And also last month, an 18-year-old violist named Armando Cañizales was shot and killed by government forces for participating in a demonstration. Both became symbols of the resistance and protesters have only become more determined to bring about change.

But so far, the military has been firm in its support of the sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, whom members of the opposition say has turned into a dictator. However, last week the leader of the National Defense Council, Gen. Alexis López Ramírez, resigned from his position, and on Tuesday he announced why. While López Ramírez expressed his general appreciation of Maduro, he also said he disagreed with the president’s plans to create a constituent assembly.

Maduro has said he wants to create a citizens’ assembly to rewrite the constitution. The opposition has criticized the move as a way to create more power for Maduro without having to consult the opposition-controlled National Assembly first. Maduro claims the assembly would bring peace to the country. López Ramírez’s resignation further increased the unrest, and many wondered whether the military could stop its support of Maduro.

Protesters set fire to Venezuela’s Supreme Court as anti-government clashes rage on after two months https://t.co/aqK0Hg7Plk pic.twitter.com/E42NisYgis

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 13, 2017

Last week, Venezuela’s chief prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz challenged Maduro’s efforts at creating a constituent assembly. On Monday, the country’s Supreme Court dismissed her request, after which protesters set the Supreme Court building on fire. Ortega Diaz said that after she turned against Maduro, she and her family have received multiple threats. She also said agents had followed her and state officials have verbally attacked her.

So far, 70 people have died in the protests. The increasing violence of the protests has caused people that have received benefits from the government to turn their backs on it. After Cañizales, the violinist, was killed last month, the country’s classical musicians took to the streets.

Classical musicians in Venezuela have generally stayed out of politics. Most of them belong to a state-financed musical program that has offered training for hundreds of thousands of kids from working-class families. “In its 42 years, El Sistema somehow managed to keep an impartial position,” said Ollantay Velásquez, the director of Cañizales’s orchestra, referring to the program. “It has stayed that way until today.”

Classical music in Venezuela had long been neutral to politics — until a young musician was killed in protests https://t.co/iBQ2C1yAZf pic.twitter.com/Oi0VQfAo6u

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) June 12, 2017

Azuaje, the politician who disappeared, was allegedly last seen being shoved into a National Guard plane in the middle of the night in early May. “He’s disappeared. They kidnapped him. There is complete silence,” his mother Carmen Cordero said, adding that he has been a thorn in the side of the government for a long time. He allegedly encouraged people to keep protesting, which led Maduro supporters to call him a promoter of violence.

Names of those who were killed during protests in Venezuela https://t.co/D4SbFgw91w pic.twitter.com/B2uMyVkIJh via @MariaGMonagas

— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) June 12, 2017

Many Venezuelan officials and former politicians have chosen to move abroad, but recently they have faced increasing public shaming. Last month in Miami, former minister Eugenio Vasquez was having breakfast at a bakery when angry Venezuelans caught sight of him. With shouts of “rat” and “thief,” the people drove him out of the bakery. In Switzerland, a woman ran into Ambassador Cesar Mendez at a grocery store, and shouted “corrupt” and “thieves.”

Similar cases have been reported from New York, Madrid, and Sydney, where the daughter of the Caracas Mayor Jorge Rodriguez, Lucia, was harassed by a woman shouting “Thanks to your father, people are dying!” Lucia Rodriguez is currently in Sydney on a student visa. A petition to the Australian government to revoke her visa–and other children of Venezuelan officials–has almost 30,000 signatures.

Maduro has condemned the treatment of officials and their families abroad, and even compared it to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews. But, as Javier Fungairino from the Miami bakery pointed out, they only use words. “I never laid a finger on him. I simply raised my voice,” he said. “They hate when people complain. They think they’re so powerful that they’re not used to that kind of treatment.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest in Venezuela Rages on After Military Kills Teenage Violinist appeared first on Law Street.

For the last several years, Venezuela has been plagued by uncertainty following the death of its former enigmatic leader Hugo Chavez. This is a situation that has only been exacerbated by the steep drop in oil prices. Recently, the crisis in Venezuela reached such a low point that current President Nicolas Maduro accused the country’s bakers of waging an unannounced war on its people through price gouging. Although the bakers of Venezuela are clearly not the major issue plaguing the country, real problems certainly exist. Read on to find out how the country’s leadership and its economic decisions have brought a nation rich in natural resources into a political and economic crisis.

History of Venezuela

Venezuela’s first interaction with the western world began right at the end of the 15th century, around 1498, when Christopher Columbus first landed there. The actual colonization of what would become Venezuela began in 1521 by the Spanish. In 1810, the country declared its independence, and in 1829, it broke away from Gran Colombia to become its own independent nation. In 1945, the country threw out its military leader in a coup and elected its first democratic government. However, that government’s reign was short-lived, with the military taking back over after another coup in 1948.

Democratic government was restored in 1958 and the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders occurred in 1964. Venezuela then rode high oil prices throughout the 1970s and 80s until prices finally started to lag. This development forced then-President Carlos Perez to negotiate for relief with the International Monetary Fund–negotiations that ultimately led to riots in the streets. Following Perez’s eventual impeachment on corruption charges, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998.

Venezuela Under Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez eventually rose to the presidency following a failed coup attempt that he led in 1992. After he was captured, Chavez delivered a speech on national television that garnered him popularity among average, disaffected Venezuelans. This popularity was essential to Chavez’s eventual pardon and release from prison in 1994. It also positioned him as an anti-establishment force, which would rocket him to the presidency in 1998.

Upon his initial election, Chavez was extremely popular among Venezuelans. He used that public support to give himself extraordinary control over all three branches of government. However, many of those moves, along with his plans to imitate Cuba’s style of government and his decision to antagonize the United States, alienated Venezuela from the West. Those moves, coupled with efforts to gain more power, caused his approval ratings to sink from as high as 80 percent to a low of 30 percent.

Dissatisfaction reached the point where, in 2002, Chavez was briefly removed from office in another coup. However, he quickly returned to power and later gained greater control over the local oil industry following a large-scale strike. Using these new resources and buoyed again by high oil prices, he offered citizens lavish social programs to help ensure his reelection in 2006. In 2009, he passed constitutional reforms to remove term limits and ensure that he could continue leading the country. This move also enabled him to crack down on dissent. Chavez’s power consolidation took a secondary role in 2011, when he went to Cuba for cancer treatment. Chavez would ultimately die from cancer-related effects in 2013.

Post-Chavez

Chavez was succeeded by loyalist Nicolas Maduro. Maduro, a career politician who had been elected as Venezuela’s vice president in 2014, went to great lengths to further Chavez’s ideals. Upon ascending to the presidency, Maduro hoped to solidify his grip on power by arresting opponents. This approach seemed to be working, especially when he garnered the support of the military until oil prices began to fall once more.

Falling Oil Prices

In 2014, global oil prices began to plummet from a high of over $100 a barrel to below $30 a barrel. Venezuela was hit especially hard because roughly half of the government’s revenue comes from the oil industry. While the country set up a fund to save surplus revenues during the oil boom of the 1990s, the fund was drained during Chavez’s reign, as he used it to fund social welfare programs and help ensure his reelection. The accompanying video explains many of the issues plaguing Venezuela following and as a result of Chavez’s regime:

Venezuela’s economy became so dependent on high oil prices, that countries grew less willing to invest there as they started to doubt its ability to pay them back. An example of this occurred in 2016, when the Chinese Development Bank was one of only a few institutions willing to continue lending directly to the South American nation, but it did so with many more conditions than in years past. This also had the added effect of reducing Venezuela’s influence among its neighbors, as it can no longer use its oil exports as leverage. Even if oil prices rebound, Venezuela is still likely to face serious trouble, as its state-run oil company will have so much debt that it could have trouble paying for further oil exploration.

Country in Free Fall

In a country where 95 percent of all exports are oil-related, it is clear how devastating a dramatic drop in prices can be. This drop led the government to make dramatic currency interventions that have sparked massive bouts of inflation and triggered supply shortages for essentials like medicine and even food. When the crisis first began developing, President Maduro denied that there was even a problem to begin with, although he eventually issued food vouchers in an attempt to prevent people from going hungry. Nevertheless, more Venezuelans are increasingly going without food and malnutrition rates are rising. The government itself cannot afford to even import more food as it is out of money.

On top of the food and humanitarian crises–which are largely a result of economic mismanagement and fluctuations in international oil markets–are unpopular political moves by President Maduro to consolidate his power. In March, loyalists who were selected by President Maduro on the Venezuelan high court chose to dissolve the National Assembly. The power of the Assembly was to be transferred to the courts under Maduro who, critics argue, effectively became a dictator. While the ruling was revised days later, much about the rule of law in Venezuela remains in question, particularly given that the high court had already been ruling against the National Assembly’s attempts to rein in Maduro.

These moves, and the sheer desperation experienced by many in the country, have led to mass protests. In recent weeks, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Caracas, the capital, to protest and demand new elections. However, these protests were met with force both from police and paramilitary groups supported by the Maduro government known as colectivos. The harsh crackdown by the government has led to international condemnation from nearby countries such as Peru and global powers like the United States. It has also spurred calls for more mass protests across cities in Venezuela. Nevertheless, Maduro remains in power and enjoys some support among his base and by those who believe the actions of protesters are not the appropriate way to bring about change.

The video below looks at recent protests:

Conclusion

Venezuela, like many countries with a colonial legacy, has struggled to create the vibrant and dynamic economy needed to be competitive in the global economy. For most of its independent history, it has been ruled by military dictatorships with a few years of democratic governance in between–but these temporary civilian governments have been undone by a perpetual series of coups. This inability to establish a competent government and the country’s over-reliance on oil for its economy held the potential for disaster.

That disaster came when oil prices bottomed out, leaving the country unable to feed its citizens or meet their basic needs. Naturally, this has led to a crisis of confidence in current President Nicholas Madero, successor to the charismatic and extremely controversial Hugo Chavez. Chavez and Maduro both ascended to power on the notion of cleaning out the old, corrupt government institutions and installing something more responsive to real people’s concerns. However, the actual results of their decisions led to unsustainable social programs that plunged the country into debt as oil prices fell. Now it seems that most Venezuelans want a new government and most of all, a new president.

How the situation with Madero plays out is critical to the country’s future. If protesters and the government can reach a political resolution and rebuild the government’s rapidly decaying institutions, there is hope for a major turnaround. On the other hand, if Madero continues to crack down on dissent and refuses to address the humanitarian crises taking over the country, Venezuela could be on a course for even more chaos. Even if a resolution emerges, the country will need to diversify its economy to manage its reliance on oil. Given its past failures to do so, that will not prove to be an easy task.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Behind the Crisis in Venezuela? appeared first on Law Street.

Anti-government protests have defined Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s time in office, but few, if any, past demonstrations compare to this latest wave. Infuriated by a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in late March, millions of Venezuelans have been taking to the streets demanding the 2018 presidential election be held ahead of schedule.

On Wednesday evening, Yibram Saab Fornino, son of Venezuela’s Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman), Tarek William Saab, posted a video on YouTube denouncing the government’s violent response to protesters and calling on his father to act. While the Ombudsman is meant to be a politically independent defender of social justice and humans rights, Saab is considered a government insider.

In December 2014, pro-Maduro United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) legislators controversially elected Saab as Ombudsman weeks before they would lose control of the National Assembly. The opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) boycotted the vote on the basis that Saab was a former PSUV state governor who only left the party to take up the politically independent role. Although PSUV did not have the two-thirds majority constitutionally required to elect an Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, stacked with government sympathizers, upheld the vote.

Critics argue that by ignoring the violence the supposedly apolitical Ombudsman is protecting his political allies, and is complicit in the violent suppression of the opposition. Opponents of the government are latching onto Yibram Saab’s statement.

Yibram Saab begins the open letter to his father by expressing his concern for Venezuela’s “ruptured constitutional order.” He affirms that neither he nor his siblings were threatened into publishing the video but were acting freely and in accordance with the values imparted by their father. Saab goes on to condemn the “national security forces’ brutal repression” of protesters. Saab then pays tribute to Juan Pablo Pernalete, a 20-year-old university student and recent victim of Venezuela’s security forces, before appealing to his father by saying “that could have been me.”

Over the past month, Venezuela’s security forces have killed at least 29 demonstrators. Maduro has justified the violence by claiming that security forces are fighting against a terrorist-led coup. Nonetheless, Yibram Saab’s video is emblematic of the fact that state sanctioned violence has only served to embolden anti-government sentiment.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in Venezuela: Son of Ombudsman Calls on His Father to Act appeared first on Law Street.

Man Detained After Stalking Malia Obama

A longtime stalker of President Barack Obama’s oldest daughter Malia has been arrested in New York after he showed up at her internship. Jair Nilton Cardoso, of Brooklyn, had already tried to get into the White House several times in the past. He recently showed up in the Tribeca building where Malia interns for moviemaker Harvey Weinstein, holding a sign outside an office window begging her to marry him. Secret Service agents asked him to leave her alone, but he didn’t get the message. Two days later he followed Malia when she exited a building in the West Village. After the agents interviewed him they concluded he clearly has mental issues and reported him to the police. No charges have been filed.

She’s only 18…not that it would make it better if she were older, but she’s a kid. Jesus. https://t.co/HPkhbHlakQ

— Yashar (@yashar) April 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, CNN aired an investigation that alleged the involvement of Venezuelan Vice President Tareck El Aissami in an operation that issued passports to people with links to terrorism out of its embassy in Baghdad. On Wednesday, in response to the broadcast, Venezuela pulled the plug on CNN en Español. Venezuela’s scuffle with CNN comes a few days after the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on El Aissami, who it says played a “significant role in international narcotics trafficking.”

After a year-long investigation, CNN released its report in a two-part broadcast on February 6 and 8. Out of the Venezuelan embassy in Baghdad, officials issued over 150 passports in exchange for thousands of dollars, the CNN report said. According to intelligence documents obtained by CNN, El Aissami, 42, directed the passport-for-cash operation. At least some of the passports were issued to members of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese jihadist group that the State Department considers a terrorist group.

A little more than a week after its report aired, the Spanish-language version of CNN was pulled in Venezuela. The English-language CNN channel remains on the air. Responding to Venezuela’s silencing, a CNN spokesperson said: “We believe in the vital role that freedom of the press plays in a healthy democracy. Today, the government of Venezuela pulled our television signal, denying Venezuelans news and information from our television network, which they have relied on for 20 years.”

A bi-partisan group of U.S. congressmen recently pushed the White House to sanction Venezuela, whose socialist government is in shambles–its citizens are struggling to find food and daily necessities. On Monday, the Treasury Department levied sanctions on Venezuelan officials, including El Aissami. In a statement, the Treasury Department said El Aissami “facilitated shipments of narcotics from Venezuela, to include control over planes that leave from a Venezuelan air base, as well as control of drug routes through the ports in Venezuela.”

Under the sanctions, El Aissami’s American assets will be frozen, and U.S. companies are blocked from doing business with him. On Wednesday, embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro decried the recent inflammatory actions stemming from CNN and the U.S. “CNN and the State Department are imposing on you a wrongheaded policy toward Venezuela,” Maduro  the Venezuelan people. “They are promoting a general and massive intervention, and aggression against Venezuela.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Venezuela Pulls Spanish-Language CNN After Investigative Report into VP appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelans take to the streets to protest a government that is failing to feed them, an investigation by the Associated Press found that the military has profited while the people starve. The military in Venezuela has controlled food distribution since last summer. In dozens of interviews, and in reviewing pertinent documents, the AP found that members of the Food Ministry and the military are involved in a graft scheme that enriches their coffers while boosting food prices past the point of affordability for many people.

The graft scheme, according to the AP, is conducted through various means. For instance, officials demand millions of dollars in kickbacks on import contracts. Officials demand bribes at highway checkpoints and at the port, sometimes keeping ships docked until a payment is made. One food vendor told the AP that he paid millions of dollars in bribes to government officials in exchange for contracts. He was able to afford the bribes by charging the state more than what the market price dictates.

“It’s an unbroken chain of bribery from when your ship comes in until the food is driven out in trucks,” said Luis Pena, director of Premier Foods, a company that imports food. At Puerto Cabello, a bustling port west of Caracas, customs officials are paid off when cargo is unloaded. Truck drivers delivering imported food to markets are sometimes forced to pay bribes at military checkpoints on the highway

One grocer told the AP that when he ran out of food, he went to an illegal military-run market, where corn flour was sold for 100 times its government-marked price. “The military would be watching over whole bags of money,” the grocer said.

In 2004, Hugo Chavez, the socialist president who passed away in 2013, created the Food Ministry, nationalizing Venezuela’s farms and factories, effectively handing food distribution to the state. Oil prices crashed in 2014, bankrupting the government, and forcing President Nicolas Maduro to import almost all of the country’s food supply. Now, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans can’t afford enough food, and people are dying of starvation. Hospitals lack basic supplies, and some people are fleeing the country or foraging for food in empty lots and jungles.

U.S. prosecutors have taken notice of the graft, and some have launched investigations into Venezuelan officials who have been profiting off the country’s food crises. In addition, the world’s top three food export companies, all based in the U.S., have stopped doing business with the Venezuelan government. But parents continue to lose children who are driven to extreme measures to fill their stomachs, and the military’s graft scheme only deepens the suffering. Cliver Alcala, a retired general who helped oversee border security, told the AP: “food is a better business than drugs.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AP Investigation: In Venezuela, the Military Profits as People Starve appeared first on Law Street.

Alicia Machado, Miss Universe 1996, is speaking up for minorities and speaking out against Donald Trump. Her message? Become an American so you can vote against Trump this November.

In the past month Machado has come forward about Trump’s horrendous behavior toward her as Miss Universe. Apparently, Trump made fun of her weight and nationality repeatedly after the pageant, calling her names like “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeper” in response to her weight gain following the competition. At the time, Machado said it pushed her into bouts of anorexia and bulimia for years as well as sparking her depression. Trump even admits to pushing Machado to lose weight after her reign as Miss Universe, not to mention the dozens of other Miss Universe contestants he reportedly shamed.

In response to Trump’s bullying, Machado has applied to become a U.S. citizen to vote against him in favor of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, this fall. Clinton tweeted at Machado, congratulating her on attaining citizenship and sharing a video of the former Miss Universe talking about Trump:

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, Alicia. Enjoy casting that vote. https://t.co/jewmwZrrOA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 20, 2016

The video includes footage of Trump forcing Machado to workout with the media watching her. It also shows him shaming the then-19-year-old for her weight:

She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went up to 160 or 70 pounds so this is somebody that likes to eat.

The video ends with a clip of Machado laughing as the interviewer asks if she will be voting for Trump this fall.

Machado has finally decided to speak up. She claims to have realized a few weeks ago that the only way to stop Trump from reaching the White House is to gain citizenship and vote against him, as well as to urge members of her community to do the same. Machado sees Trump as the next Hugo Chavez and wants to put a stop to his play for power.

Her commitment to increasing awareness of Trump’s Chavez-like ways in the Latino community is backed by many national organizations. Machado met with immigration advocacy groups, including People for the American way and Casa in Action, recently to help their cause. An ad the two groups are releasing aims to play up Trump’s anti-immigrant statements to showcase why Latinos should vote for Hillary.

The video explains how a Trump presidency will cause our society to become more intolerant and hateful. It also showcases several of the inappropriate names Trump has used to describe immigrants. Machado stands firmly with the message of this video, saying that “everybody in America needs to open their eyes” and that “we don’t need more divisions in this country.” Plus, the video is almost entirely in Spanish to appeal to Latino voters.

Machado has taken the hits from Trump with dignity, choosing to see his insults about her heritage (calling her Miss Housekeeper) as honorable because of how hard immigrant housekeepers and nannies work. She claims she is not going to flee the country if he is elected president because, “this is a great country with wonderful politics and amazing benefits, and this imbecile won’t be able to change that, we are stronger than Trump.” What she wants people to know is that:

This country does not deserve a Chávez. And that’s what Trump is…a demagogue, racist, egocentric, misogynist, demeaning man, who lacks cultural and political knowledge. This country does not deserve that.

As a result of her resilience and well known name, Machado has the potential to influence lots of voters. Seems like Trump better watch who he insults, or he could see his campaign quickly lose traction.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Miss Universe 1996 Speaks Out Against Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Venezuela has been suffering from food shortages for a while now. Shortages of basic needs have become the norm in Venezuela over the past few years, but as images from citizens continue to swarm social media sites it only seems to be getting worse. The government has reportedly taken control of all major television stations, leaving only social media as one of the few ways to see what’s going on inside the country.

Venezuelans are posting the pictures for that very reason. According to the polling firm Datanalisis, the Venezuelan people believe this is the biggest problem facing their country and the government isn’t doing anything about it. According to public opinion expert, Marcelino Bisbal, “the people, mostly poor and middle class have to queue for hours almost every day to search for food and other basic products such as detergent, toilet paper, and oil.”

The YouTube video above claims to show empty shelves in a supermarket in Venezuela. Social media sites are routinely being used by media opposed to the Venezuelan government to show the world what the government is failing to address. One of the officials behind the anti government website called Dolar Today stated in an interview with BBC:

Definitely there has been an increase in these kinds of videos, every week we get between five and ten, Without a doubt, there is a chance that they might be false, or out of date. But the vast majority of the cases are real.

Venezuela used to be known for producing coffee, rice, and oil, but with the recent food shortages productions have decreased, according to Asdrubal Oliveros, an economist at Ecoanalítica, a leading consulting firm in Venezuela.

The government continues to ignore the problem, causing many Venezuelans to believe the government’s mismanagement is behind the shortages. In January 2015, Interior Minister Carmen Melendez stated,“Don’t fall into desperation, we have the capacity and products for everyone, with calmness and patience. The stores are full.”

However, pictures from Venezuelans tell a different story. Activists believe it is important to show the pictures to the world and allow the international community to see the reality of Venezuela. Marcelino Bisbal, a public opinion expert, added, “This is highly dangerous in a country where the government policy is not to say a word about this, as if it’s not happening.”

In 2013, President Nicolás Maduro stated that the food shortages were being artificially created by the opposition and the CIA. President Maduro backed up this claim by claiming that the CIA was somehow involved in the death of Venezuela’s previous president Hugo Chavez. He stated that a U.S. Air Force attaché had been expelled from Venezuela hours before Chavez’s death and accused him of seeking military support for a plot against Chavez. He also claimed that the CIA is forming a wider plan to destabilize his government in addition to sabotaging the oil industry, creating food shortages, and triggering power cuts.

While there are multiple reasons for the instability in Venezuela that is causing the food shortages, the government’s apparent attempts to ignore the problem are drawing more attention to the country. Government officials continue to claim that their policies are not the problem and they have nothing to do with the food shortages, but the fact that they have done nothing to ameliorate them is certainly concerning.

Earlier this year, the government deployed the military to control food supplies, making sure citizens do not overindulge. Venezuelans now deal with militarization, food shortages, and a tanking economy. With the government in control of the television and offering the people little hope of reform, Venezuelans have shown the government they can not be silenced or ignored and they will continue to use social media to convey the truth.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Continued Food Shortages in Venezuela Spark Social Media Outcry appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order in March banning seven Venezuelan government officials from conducting business with American citizens or travel within the country. The order also permits the seizure of any assets in the United States held by the officials. According to the White House, the sanctions were imposed as a measure against the ongoing human rights violations and corruption within the Venezuelan government; however, the sanctions received a significant amount of negative feedback. The waters had seemed relatively calm between the two nations but spiraled quickly this year. To understand the historically strained diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela, it is important to grasp the relationship under Hugo Chávez, Socialist party member and President of Venezuela between February 2009 and March 2013. What exactly motivated these sanctions? And what’s happening four months later?

History

The United States and Venezuela officially established diplomatic relation in 1835, five years after Venezuela withdrew from its federation with Colombia. The relationship was strong based on economic ties and anti-narcotic initiatives. The U.S. has a history of relying on Venezuela as a major oil supplier. The late Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999 began the current era of strained and aggressive relations. Chávez was famous for anti-American rhetoric, propelling a powerful “us” against “them” mentality within the country.

The charismatic Chávez won his first election with a 56 percent majority and a platform of ending corruption and eliminating poverty. Chávez ran full force with Plan Bolivar 2000, a social anti-poverty program that included road and housing projects and mass vaccination. The newly established constitution, approved by popular referendum, abolished the senate, authorized a unicameral National Assembly, and lengthened the presidential term from five to six years.

His wide popularity lasted until 2001. Opponents criticized his extreme Left agenda and the continued poor living conditions in the country. A short-lived coup ousted him from office for three days, until the pro-Chávez Presidential Guard reinstated him. Chávez accused the U.S. of involvement. Although the United States publically condemned the coup, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice commented, “We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time.”

Although social programs continued, mounting dissatisfaction under the Chávez government ultimately led to a recall vote. Seventy percent of the population turned out to vote and the recall ended in a 59 percent victory for Chávez. Although the vote was verified as fair by the Carter Center, many called foul play. In 2005, Chávez ended Venezuela’s 35-year military ties with the United States, and tensions only increased after Venezuela’s public relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Russia. In 2006, Russia and Venezuela signed a $2.9 billion arms deal. In 2005, Chávez also strengthened his ties with China and Iran. Although Venezuela continued to provide oil to low-income families in the U.S., Chávez publically called President Bush the “devil.”

Chávez only continued to radicalize. In 2007, he announced “the nationalization of the telecom and electricity industries as well as the Central Bank, and cancel[ed] the broadcast license of private media company RCTV.” He also advocated for an act that would allow him to rule by decree for 18 months. In December 2007, he pushed for constitutional amendments that would entirely eliminate presidential terms, suspend media rights, and hold citizens without declaring charges during a state of emergency. In the same year, he withdrew from the IMF and World Bank.

In 2008, relations hit a boiling point when Chávez expelled the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy and recalled the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington. Chávez accused the U.S. of authorizing a coup against him and announced, “When there’s a new government in the United States, we’ll send an ambassador. A government that respects Latin America.”

In 2011, rumors of the severity of Chávez’s health condition began to circulate as he had a tumor removed in Cuba. A year later, he won his fourth election defeating Henrique Capriles Radonski, who represents the Coalition for Democratic Unity. October 11, 2012, he hand picked Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro as his vice president. In March 2015, Maduro announced Chávez had died from cancer.

Maduro, a less charismatic version of Chávez, beat his opponent by a 1.5 percent margin in the next election. Capriles demanded a recount and protests filled the capital. Nine people died in the riots and Maduro, faced with a crumbling economy and exasperated by falling oil prices and increased crime and protests, turned to violent government suppression.

The Sanctions

Still on a rocky platform, the U.S. and Venezuela started 2014 with an optimistic outlook, both countries issuing statements regarding a resumed positive relationship. That quickly turned sour after student-led protests in February turned violent with military involvement. By the end, 43 people were dead and 800 injured. A major figurehead of the opposition, Leopoldo Lόpez, and two opposition mayors were arrested. The Union of South America Nations intervened to initiate diplomatic conversations between the government and opposition that ultimately failed. In 2015, another opposition figurehead, Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, was arrested. The Obama Administration claims that the constant violation of human rights, the failure to combat narco-trafficking, and specifically the February protests directly led to the 2015 sanctions placed on Venezuela.

U.S. Policy

On March 9, 2015, President Obama issued an executive order calling Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” and targeting seven Venezuelan officials. The sanctions are authorized under the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 and three other congressional resolutions.

The following video shows Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pushing for this bill.

A press release from the White House states the act is,

aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela. The E.O. does not target the people or the economy of Venezuela.

Before the additional sanctions, the U.S. had imposed financial sanctions on eight current of former officials accused of aiding the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in drug and weapons trafficking. Three sanctions were imposed on Venezuelan companies with ties to Iran and three individuals with ties to Hezbollah. As of today, more than 50 current or former Venezuelan government officials accused of human rights violations are under U.S. sanctions.

Domestic and Foreign Response

Although the sanctions were imposed to promote Democratic ideals and human rights, they have been met with a significant amount of negative feedback.

Congress

Sixteen members of Congress sent a letter imploring President Obama to rescind his executive order. They argued that the sanctions will be ineffective and the timing is poor with the U.S. now re-opening communication with Cuba. If the country is trying to improve diplomatic relations with Latin American, this is a poor second gesture. To open doors with Cuba and cut off Venezuela sends the wrong message to the wider community. Sanctions also harbor ill-will from the people who see it as a direct attack on the country, not just those seven individuals. The letter cites a poll that shows 75 percent of the Venezuelan population are against the sanctions. The members also argue that PROVEA, a Caracas-based human rights organization known for its criticism of Maduro, is also against the sanctions. They fear that the sanctions will strengthen the Maduro government on an anti-American platform, and instead of the Venezuelan people focusing on the corruption of its government, they will now focus on the imperialistic conduct of the U.S.

Latin American Community

The Obama Administration has received a strong negative response from Latin America. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), consisting of 12 countries, has backed Venezuela against the sanctions. The foreign ministers have called the executive order a threat against Venezuelan sovereignty. Cuba has called the action “arbitrary and aggressive.”

The Argentine foreign ministry issued a statement saying “it’s absolutely unbelievable that any marginally informed person would think that Venezuela, or any other South American or Latin American country, could constitute a threat to the national security of the United States.” In a similar tone, former Uruguayan President José Mujica stated, “Whoever looks at the map and says that Venezuela could be a threat to the United States has to be out of his mind.”

Even if the sanctions are legitimate, some believe the particular wording too harsh. The sanctions have seemed to isolate the U.S. from the Latin American community, just as measures were being taken to open doors.

Maduro Government

Maduro responded to the executive action calling it “the most aggressive, unjust and harmful step that has ever been taken by the U.S. against Venezuela.” He quickly named one of the sanctions officials his new interior minister and called all those sanctioned individuals heroes. Maduro also accused Obama of “personally taking on the task of defeating my government, intervening in Venezuela, in order to control it from the U.S.”

In Maduro’s most direct move on the topic, he published a letter in the New York Times calings the order “tyrannical and imperial” and stating that “it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.” More than 5 million Venezuelans petitioned their names to the letter.

To counteract the alleged U.S. threat, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved Maduro’s request to obtain the power to legislate by decree for the duration of the year–a move that those in opposition of the sanctions feared. He also called for an immediate reduction of the U.S. embassy in Venezuela and imposed new visa requirements for Americans.

Recent Developments

U.S.-Venezuela talks took place in Haiti on June 4 between Thomas Shannon, a counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State, and Diosdado Cabello, the chairman of Venezuela’s national assembly and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Rodriguez. Venezuelan officials tweeted that both sides were working to resolve the crisis. Interestingly enough, U.S. media sites have reported that Cabello is currently being investigated by the U.S. for drug trafficking and money laundering.

On July 1, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) arrived in Venezuela to meet with opposition leaders, though the discussions have been kept largely under wraps.

Conclusion

Although meetings are taking place between the two countries after the March blow up, no significant headway seems to have been made quite yet. Venezuelan and American citizens can only hope for the best and rely on our respective diplomatic representatives. Are the sanctions effective? Maybe not. The U.S. aims to fight human rights violations and those who aid or turn a blind eye to drug trafficking. But the tactic used leaves a lot to be desired. The U.S. is effectively isolating itself from the Venezuelan people and giving fire to Maduro’s anti-American campaign.

Resources

Congressional Research Service: Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations

Al Jazeera: U.S. Venezuela Relations Sour in New Spat

BBC: U.S. Venezuela Talks Take Place in Haiti Despite Tensions

BBC: Venezuelan Leader Maduro Condemns New U.S. Sanctions

Council on Foreign Relations: Venezuela’s Chaves Era

Global Research: Letter to the People of the United States

Huffington Post: Democrats Ask Obama to Stop Sanctioning Venezuela

Huffington Post: South American Governments Slam Obama Over Venezuela Sanctions

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Relations With Venezuela

U.S. News & World Report: Venezuela Sanctions Backfire on Obama

Venezuelan Analysis: Over 5 Million Venezuelans Sign Letter Urging Repeal of Obama’s Executive Order

Venezuelan Analysis: U.S. Republican Senator Meets With Venezuelan Opposition in Caracas

White House: Venezuela Executive Order

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S.-Venezuelan Relations: Can the Doors Be Reopened? appeared first on Law Street.

As anyone who drives a lot–or has a TV, reads the paper, or just generally pays attention–knows, the price of gas has gone down recently. Way down! More specifically the price of Brent crude oil, a major global type, dipped below $60 a barrel Tuesday for the first time in more than five years. That means the price of crude oil has dropped by more than $50 a barrel since its peak, which was just in June. Additionally, nationwide the average price of a gallon of gas has dropped from a high of $3.70 in April 2014 to the current low of $2.53. There are several reasons for this drop; there are also numerous issues that have already begun to arise from the drop in price and many more potential problems if the price of oil remains low or falls even further.

Why is the Price of Oil Falling?

First, the obvious questions: why are oil prices suddenly dropping and why is it happening so rapidly? To answer these queries one must look into account, supply, and demand.

Too Much Supply

First is supply. Specifically, there is too much oil out there, or at least that’s the perception. This buildup is the result of several actors overproducing when the market is not ready to absorb their goods.

• OPEC: OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization aimed at fixing oil prices of its member countries to ensure each has a fair and stable market for its product. The organization is made up of countries from South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. OPEC gained its greatest notoriety, and also put its fairness into question, with two embargoes in the 1970s that dramatically increased prices at the time. In a surprising about face however, in late November 2014, members elected to continue production at current levels. Why would OPEC elect to continue producing at high rates when basic economic wisdom called for a smaller supply? First, several members of OPEC have only just recently been able to ramp production back up to earlier levels. Libya, for example, was in a long struggle with rebels before it recently was able to reopen two key ports critical for oil exportation. Saudi Arabia was already burned before by trying to reduce supply to match demand back in the 1980s. Instead of keeping prices high it saw a significant loss in market share.
• U.S. Energy Boom: OPEC members increasingly have to tangle with the United States. While reports vary on which country is ranked where, the United States is unquestionably the world leader in energy production when natural gas and bio-fuels are included along with oil manufacturing. Biofuels and natural gas aside, the United States still ranks second in oil production behind Saudi Arabia, it being responsible for approximately 12 percent of the world’s output. The reason for the spike in American production is the now well documented shale boom that transformed places like North Dakota into energy and job hot spots. The video below details some of the pros and cons of the U.S. oil boom.

• Other Players: Along with OPEC and the United States there are several other major players in the Oil Industry. Chief among them is Russia, which sits closely behind at number three on the world’s production list. Russia is incredibly dependent on its energy sector, which generates up to 50 percent of the funds necessary to underwrite its budget. Along with Russia there are a few other non-OPEC countries, namely China, Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Less Demand

Clearly then, higher supply is impacting world oil prices, but it is not alone. Equally as important is demand. After all, you can make as much of something as you like, but if no one wants it you are never going to make any money. So it is, in a sense, with oil.

A major decline in demand has occurred in two generally reliable regions–Asia and Europe–but specifically in Germany and China, due to economic slowdowns. In other key places such as the United States, similar sags in demand have been seen, but for different reasons. In the U.S., use of gasoline by companies plummeted following the financial crisis and has never returned to pre-crisis levels. Additionally, after numerous experiences being burned by unstable prices America has shifted away from high gas consumption toward more efficient technology like hybrids.

What It Means Now

Bad News

So what does this all mean then? For some countries this drop in oil prices is very bad. Russia in particular has a lot to lose with plunging oil prices. As alluded to earlier, up to 50 percent of its economy is dependent on oil prices and those prices have plummeted. As a result, Russia’s currency–the Ruble–has recently collapsed, losing a massive amount of value in just a couple of days. The collapse, coupled with western sanctions over Ukraine, is threatening to send Russia into a recession. The big question then is whether Russians are still willing to support Putin’s tactics when their standard of living starts to decline?

Other countries such as some of the members of OPEC also have a lot to lose as a result of the crisis. Like Russia, much of their budgets are predicated on their oil revenue. Thus countries like Iran and Nigeria that had relied on oil prices at much higher rates to maintain a sound budget now find themselves being forced to make cuts or face deficits–and even potentially defaults. It is even worse for another member: Venezuela.

Venezuela, despite having huge oil reserves, is facing an impending crisis that could be even worse than Russia’s. At least in Russia’s case it has reserve currency and little debt. Venezuela on the other hand has neither and was already dealing with shortages of other goods earlier this year. This situation has the makings of a powder keg. Some of these countries may also have to consider giving up stipends or canceling social programs funded by oil production. Some of these programs were instrumental in countries like Saudi Arabia potentially avoiding Arab Spring-style uprisings. The video below touches on the problems dropping oil prices imposes on Russia and Venezuela.

Mixed News

What about the United States? As mentioned earlier it has recently become either the biggest or second biggest producer of oil itself. What would a prolonged drop in the price of oil mean to the stars and stripes? Well, as is often the case, the United States may provide the most difficult answer. In certain ways this is a good thing. For example, Americans spending less on gas have more money to spend on other consumer goods, which could help spur faster economic growth.

Conversely, lowered prices could also mean some firms could no longer compete in the market. Many have speculated that lowered prices could dampen the U.S. oil boom currently taking place. In fact in has been widely circulated that OPEC’s decision to keep production high is basically a stare down between it and the United States where one side will eventually be forced to lower production to artificially inflate prices to stay in business. Additionally, employment is a major concern. Lost jobs here could be especially painful as they account for many of the jobs created since the recession.

 Conclusion

At the end of the day it is still unclear what will be the long term results of the drop in oil prices. In fact, as of right now it is still unclear how long these drops will be maintained at all; however, as the price continues to plunge and producers continue to forge ahead it seems fair to at least speculate. Really it’s just amazing that after all the war and talk of renewables globally that the world finds itself on such a precipice again concerning the familiar black gold. It seems then for now the impact of oil’s price drop will be left, much like its value is calculated, up to speculation.

Resources

Primary 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries: Brief History

Additional

Finances Online: Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World: Where’s the Greatest Petroleum Domination

USA Today: Eight Countries that Win and Lose Big from Oil Plunge

Vox: Why Oil Prices Keep Falling and Throwing the World Into Turmoil

USA Today: Russia’s Ruble in Free Fall Amid Panic

CNBC: Ticking Time Bombs: Where Oil’s Fall is Dangerous

Sovereign Investor The Hidden Cost of Oil

Foreign Policy: Can OPEC Kill the US Oil Boom?

Forbes: Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth and Security

CNN: Oil Plunge Takes Prices Below $55 A Barrel

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Law Street.