Despite a long history of regime change failures, many officials still cling to the idea that forcibly overthrowing foreign governments is an effective tool to promote American interests abroad. The fact is, the scholarly evidence shows that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed and often spiral into lengthy state-building projects that don’t achieve their predetermined goals. American officials should recognize this reality and avoid the pitfalls associated with forcibly changing government, as they pursue their country’s policy goals.
In the case of Venezuela, it’s not just about pushing for Maduro’s downfall but also recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of the country. But even if it weren’t, precedent and international law don’t make regime change the only option for addressing the situation.
A regime-change strategy has three major problems. First, it’s hard to justify overthrowing a government for parochial reasons. The US fought to topple the Guatemalan government in 1954 for the benefit of the United Fruit Company, but it’s hard to see that as an objective reason to intervene again.
Second, a regime-change mission often puts other countries on notice that they could be next, which often prompts those nations to take steps to avoid the same fate. And third, a regime-change mission rarely leads to a thriving democracy that’s stable and governed by well-established rules of competition. Instead, a forcibly changed nation often becomes unstable and vulnerable to future power struggles and the kind of domestic conflict that spawns civil wars or jihadist insurgencies.
About the Author
