Most of the U.S. foreign policy community assumes that relations between the United States and Venezuela can only improve in the aftermath of Hugo Chavez's death. Exemplifying this optimism, the Obama administration’s initial reaction was to note that as a "new chapter" begins in Venezuela, Washington reaffirms "its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government." The U.S. response was based on the hope that any successor to Chavez will be interested in repairing the breach that opened up between the two nations during the almost 13 years of Chavez's tenure.
But nothing should be taken for granted. When other implacably anti-American leaders have died or passed from the scene, their successors have not automatically sought to improve their relations with Washington -- Iran being a prominent example. Careful attention needs to be paid to separating Chavez's personal animosities toward Washington -- which might not be shared by his successor -- from the incentives embedded in the needs of Venezuela’s ruling system. Depending on who wins the election to finish Chavez's term of office, the next Venezuelan president may not be interested in improving ties with the United States; more likely, Chavez’s successor will have a far different standard as to what constitutes a rapprochement than most American officials. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State Group Won't Work
- A Tale of Two Interventions: U.S. Content to Contain Islamic State Group and Ebola
- The Realist Prism: Can Obama Count on ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to Fight Islamic State Group?
- Islamic State Threat Puts Independence on Hold for Iraq’s Kurds
- In Fight Against Islamic State, Iraqi Kurds Are Problematic Partners