In order to understand the current international tension over Venezuela’s political leadership, it is important to consider the scope of devastation in Venezuela and how it has unfolded. Upon taking office in 2013, Maduro continued the economic policies of his predecessor Hugo Chavez and increased Venezuela’s dependency on oil production and exports. Just one year into Maduro’s term in 2014, global oil prices fell dramatically, which sent the Venezuelan economy into a state of hyperinflation and economic crisis. By 2018, the annual inflation rate in Venezuela was reported at 1,300,000 per cent. The price of everyday goods in Venezuela doubles every 19 days, leaving millions of Venezuelans unable to afford basic necessities such as food and medicine.

Running parallel to the economic emergency in Venezuela is the equally devastating political crisis, as Maduro has grown to resemble an autocrat. Maduro’s government arbitrarily imprisons or exiles members of the political opposition and engages in violent repression of free political speech. Since the beginning of the crisis in Venezuela as many as three million people have left the country, fleeing hunger and oppression. Following the announcement that Maduro had won re-election in May 2018, the Lima Group, an alliance of 14 Latin American countries plus Canada, released a statement declaring that they would not recognize the results of the election because “it does not adhere to international standards of a democratic, free, fair, and transparent process.”

But if Maduro has caused such devastation for the Venezuelan people and his leadership is widely denounced by the international community, why is it controversial to recognize the legitimacy of Juan Guiado? The answer lies in the United States’ complicated history of interventionist and politically motivated foreign policy in Latin America.

While American involvement in Latin America dates back to the 19thcentury, the interventionist nature of American foreign policy towards the region is best exemplified by the Cold War period, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1973, a military coup in Chile was supported by extensive covert action of the United States’ government. Similarly, in the early 1980s the United States sponsored rebel groups in Nicaragua who opposed the country’s socialist government and backed the right-wing government in El Salvador in their fight against leftist insurgents. Additionally, in 1983, former United States President Ronald Reagan initiated a military intervention to bring down the left-wing government in Grenada. These are just a few cases that highlight the United States’ historical involvement in shaping political outcomes in Latin America.

The United States consistently justifies these interventions by declaring that they serve the best interests of democracy and freedom. However, they also serve to further the United States’ political goals and geostrategic purposes in the region. For many, the decision to back opposition leader Juan Guiado in Venezuela is all too reminiscent of the interventionist principles of American foreign policy during the Cold War period. This is the position held by Jagmeet Singh, the leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, who has called on Canada’s Liberal government to retract their support for Guiado, stating “Canada should not simply follow the U.S. foreign policy, particularly given its history of self-interested interference in the region.” Furthermore, the international community’s expeditious recognition of Guiado just minutes after declaring himself President of Venezuela has raised suspicion that the announcement was an internationally orchestrated political coup. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that several foreign policy representatives, including Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, reportedly met with Guiado several weeks before his announcement on January 23rd.

Change needs to come in Venezuela. The question for the international community is how that change will take place. Currently, representatives from Canada, the United States, and many other democratic countries are claiming to support democratic change in Venezuela by recognizing the legitimacy of a leader who was never elected to presidential office – an inherently undemocratic practice. International leaders are hedging their bets that Juan Guiado will act in good faith to carry out free and fair democratic elections; however, this is impossible to guarantee. If Guiado’s appointment is the first step in accelerating Venezuela’s descent into autocracy, countless international leaders will be implicated for their role in the yet another political unravelling in Latin America. On the other hand, if this transition of power restores prosperity, peace, and political freedom to the people of Venezuela, the international community’s decision to recognize Guiado could become one of the greatest diplomatic feats of the 21st century.