The book "Extraordinary Threat" tears to shreds the justification for U.S.-imposed sanctions on Venezuela

Now that the Biden administration has granted immunity to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who the CIA has accused of ordering the murder of a U.S. Washington Post journalist, is there even a speck of justification for maintaining the international sanctions against Venezuela for the Maduro government’s alleged violation of democratic principles? Even before the Biden administration’s doublespeak in the case of Mohammed bin Salman, researchers Joe Emersberger and Justin Podur wrote and published “Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela” with abundant evidence and cogent arguments that tear to pieces the U.S. rationale for maintaining the sanctions. The following is my review of the book published in the journal “Latin American Politics and Society.”

Joe Emersberger and Justin Podur, Extraordinary Threat: The U.S. Empire, the Media, and Twenty Years of Coup Attempts in Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2021. Figures, tables, chronology, index, 237 pp.; hardcover $89, paperback $16. 

Latin American Politics and Society

Fall issue, 2022 

This well-documented book, which contains 744 endnotes, attempts to demonstrate that U.S. policy toward Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro has been guided by geopolitical considerations, at the same time that it displays little respect for democratic norms and national sovereignty. The book’s title is somewhat of a mockery of President Obama’s 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to United States national security.

Part One of the book’s three parts is titled “Extraordinary Myths (Advanced Versions),” and deals with recent developments involving the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration and its recognition of Juan Guaidó as the nation’s legitimate president. Emersberger and Podur argue that the justification for the recognition of Guaidó lost all meaning when in 2020 he could no longer claim to being president of the National Assembly (AN), which had previously placed him in line for the nation’s presidency, since his five-year term as AN deputy expired. The book’s lengthiest Part is the second which consists of individual chapters on five regime change schemes engineered by the opposition with support from Washington, beginning with the April 2002 abortive coup. 

Part Two’s title “Extraordinary Sedition (and Chavismo’s Tolerance of it),” lends itself to the authors’ argument that both Chávez and Maduro were overly lenient toward major coup plotters, as demonstrated by the “wide ranging amnesty” (p. 149) granted in 2007 to those implicated in the April 2002 coup. Emersberger and Podur partly blame the Chavista leadership for the impunity enjoyed by many of the perpetrators of anti-government violence. The authors add, however, that the main culprit was the judicial system dominated by non-leftists including long-standing Prosecutor General Luisa Ortega Díaz, whose actions largely explain “why grave crimes against government supporters, and the government itself, went unpunished” (p. 164) and why “the criminal justice system overall… remained stacked against poor people” (p. 217). The authors point out that this assessment of the nation’s judicial system contradicts the narrative of the mainstream media and many NGOs, which alleged that the courts were “under Chávez’s thumb” (p. 165).  Part Three is titled “Extraordinary Deceit (an Analysis)” and includes chapters on the reporting of Guardian journalist Rory Carroll on Venezuela and the declarations of Human Rights Watch which, according to the authors, are characterized by systematic deceptiveness.

Surprisingly, most of the book’s accusations are not directed at staunch anti-Communists like Marco Rubio or at the Trump administration, which implemented the harshest sanctions against Venezuela, but rather at liberals, moderates and centrists. These include Bernie Sanders and Michelle Bachelet, the New York Times, the Guardian and the New Yorker, and NGO’s, specifically Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Carter Center. Even when those in this camp did not present overtly false information, they were guilty of “lying by omission” (p. 35). One example is the media’s repeated references to Washington’s assertion that Guaidó was Venezuela’s legitimate president while omitting that “there was never any reasonable grounds for taking seriously” (p. 35) such a claim. Another “huge lie of omission” are journalistic articles that make “no mention of U.S. economic sanctions” (p. 44) or, in the case of Bachelet, say “nothing about repeated U.S. military threats” (p. 51). Along similar lines, the authors fault Sanders for criticizing Maduro’s alleged refusal to accept humanitarian aid – an accusation which according to the authors is without substance – and then being “silent as Trump openly sought to block fuel from reaching Venezuela” (p. 57).

The authors also frequently compare reporting on Venezuela with that on pro-U.S. governments with flagrant violation of human rights. Those articles not only present a relatively balanced view of repressive Washington-aligned regimes by pointing to their allegedly positive features, but downplay the gravity of their anti-democratic behavior. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is “often referred to by the romanticized term ‘kingdom’” (p. 222), while Maduro is sometimes branded a dictator. In another example, the authors compare statements by Human Rights Watch (HRW) calling for strengthening the hand of the police force under the repressive Haitian government of Gérard Latortue with HRW’s thorough condemnation of the harsh tactics of the National Police under Maduro. Emersberger and Podur are critical of the “mano dura" (p. 216) of Maduro’s police (which they contrast unfavorably with Chávez’s more lenient approach to crime). They point out, however, that Venezuelan police abuse in low-income communities that was criticized by HRW did not target government adversaries, unlike in the case of Haiti under Latortue.

Emersberger and Podur reject the thesis that Washington’s regime change efforts are dictated by Venezuela s importance as an oil producer and instead ascribe U.S. interventionism to geopolitical imperatives. The authors argue that “a direct economic incentive is insufficient” to explain Washington’s actions since the Chavista governments “never denied the United States access to its country’s oil” (p 21). The authors add that Haiti lacks strategic natural resources but “has been repeatedly crushed by U.S. intervention” (p. 22). The book’s alternative explanation is Washington’s fear that the example posed by the Chavista government of an alternative model “could inspire others” (p. 22). The authors’ thesis that minimizes the importance of petroleum as an explanatory factor runs counter to the discourse of Chávez and Maduro as well as most Chavistas, who highlight Venezuela’s status as an oil producer and influential OPEC member as the main explanation for U.S.  hostility.

The authors are occasionally critical of the Chavista government, but in these cases they contextualize the issues and in doing so hold Washington responsible for the underlying problems. In addition, the authors argue that the term "dictatorship" is incongruent with the gravity of the cases of the possible violation of democratic norms that they point to. Thus, for example, the authors suggest that “reasonable arguments” can be made that Maduro should have called an “initiating referendum” for the National Constituent Assembly given the “sweeping powers” (p. 175) that were conferred on it in 2017. In addition, the authors do not take a pro- Maduro position in their discussion of the "institutional standoff" between the national executive and the opposition-controlled National Assembly after 2015. Nevertheless, these cases were “not enough to warrant [the Venezuelan government] being called a dictatorship or even particularly ‘authoritarian’” (p. 156). An additional criticism is Maduro’s handling of the system of exchange controls which after he assumed power triggered hyperinflation. The authors, however, contextualize the error: Due to opposition-promoted destabilization attempts “Maduro was inhibited from making changes that could alienate his activist support base” (p. 142). In a criticism of Chávez (that could also apply to Maduro), the authors state “he could have placed less emphasis on political loyalty and more on technical competence when appointing people to key posts.” This error is also contextualized by making reference to “an insurrectionist opposition staunchly backed by a super-power” (p. 202).

U.S. policy toward Venezuela in the twenty-first century has been a failure from all viewpoints. Fundamental questions, such as the motivation behind Washington’s actions as well as the positions assumed by important actors including the media, NGOs, think tanks and politicians of all persuasions, are open to debate. This book, which despite various criticisms of Maduro is clearly pro-Chavista, presents cohesive empirically based arguments and in doing so contributes to a much-needed debate on U.S. foreign policy. More studies like this one anchored in relevant facts are needed to examine long-held assumptions and help clarify issues without easy answers. 

Steve Ellner

Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela)