These conversations “are viable, as long as they understand that they face another counterpart, another administration,” says the diplomat and expert in conflicts and negotiation, Juan Antonio Blanco.
Mauricio Claver-Carone, special envoy from Trump for Latin America, after the departure of Richard Grenelll, conducts conversations with representatives of Maduro so that he releases between 29 and 50 foreign political prisoners in Venezuela, including nine Americans, in exchange for 250 Venezuelans of drug trafficking, held in the maximum security prison enabled in El Salvador by President Nayib Bukele.
Claver-Carone “knows perfectly” how the regimes of Cuba and Venezuela work. Therefore, he is not a person “to whom they can dizzy the partridge,” Blanco stands out.
“The US will not accept delays or the argument of financial concessions to achieve the release of prisoners. The only thing Maduro can achieve is to improve the lousy international image he has. In the relationship of prisoners of 5 to 1 he could bet to win a little more credit without losing his social base, but he will not win anything out of the specific treatment of the exchange. I can assure that,” Blanco added.
There is no eventually another obstacle for conversations to advance, according to the expert. Even Maduro remains as “sought” on the official website of the US State Department with a reward for his capture of 25 million dollars, since January.
“That does not alter conversations; they have developed with Hamas that it is a terrorist organization, even more than the Venezuelan regime,” he says.
The negotiation specialist warns that the US, as with the Venezuelan regime, “must have an almost academic clarity of what it can do or not, and not be dragged by an emotional discourse that can unnecessarily exclude options that can give advantages.”
According to the test
Blanco, first of all, remarks that the US and Venezuela advance a conversation, not a dialogue or a negotiation, a key differentiation in diplomatic processes.
“Here we are talking about a specific thing that is what defines a conversation, and this consists of exploring the possibility of reaching an agreement on the exchange of drug traffickers for prisoners, although Maduro’s regime can pretend something else,” he clarifies. “The exchange that is offered is that of prisoners, there is no other.”
For Blanco, the elementary in a diplomatic process like this is knowing to what extent it can be conducted to fruition, “because all dictatorships do not negotiate in good faith.”
That is the typical way of proceeding with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Russia, evaluates.
“All these regimes tend to abuse the negotiation processes with dilatory tactics to avoid the imposition of sanctions and create expectations that they could modify their behavior in the future if the other party accesses concessions that are often difficult to accept.”
He mentions as an example the agreement of Barbados (October 2023) on which the opposition delegations and the Venezuelan regime, with that of the United States, maintained a dialogue in which conditions of free elections and respect for the results were set, which then Maduro did not comply.
“Despite that and the delays, they obtained all the concessions in advance. We later saw it with the elections that the opposition won in the worst conditions, because they put tremendous obstacles, and although they could demonstrate that they beat, the regime has not done anything to change their behavior.”
Conversations, credibility
Given this, Blanco says that in a process there is no more terrible problem than a negotiator without credibility, that does not comply with the agreements.
“How to recover a minimum credibility image so that they later feel to negotiate is something that may interest both Havana and them,” he says.
For Maduro’s regime, 50 people from the more than 900 political prisoners, 17 foreigners and nine American among them, all detainees without rights, serves little, points Blanco.
“It can only serve to gain compassionate image, but they are not interested in that, but to obtain economic concessions, and they are trying to take the process to that.”
In any case, it considers that what results from these first conversations between the US and Venezuela can be a step towards the development of similar diplomatic processes with Cuba and Nicaragua, where the amount of political prisoners grows, amid repression.
“They serve for good and bad. If they are successful and worthy of being an agreement, it would be a positive reference in the future for the other two regimes; but if the negotiations fail, they will also have an impact. Everything depends on the behavior of Maduro.”
Maduro, wanted
After analyzing the minimum conditions that a diplomatic conversation process must have and after negotiation, the expert highlights the importance of “knowing very well” the nature of the counterpart with the negotiation, its logic, its tactics, its behavior.
The US is clear, he says. This, despite the criticisms generated by the White House ads that has been “negotiating” directly with countries like Iran or with terrorist organizations such as Hamas.
And also with Maduro, whom the State Department maintains as “sought” as leader of the Suns Cartel linked to drug trafficking and on whom a reward of 25 million dollars weighs.
The authoritarian ruler of Venezuela, in addition, is accused since 2020 for drug trafficking and conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, in a federal process in the southern district of New York, according to official information.
“That does not alter the conversations or give any legitimacy to the counterpart with which it is, as is the case of Maduro. He is talking about something very punctual that obviously depends on giving a solution to the problem.”
Neither- warns- throws shadows on conversations.
“The US has sat down to talk with Hamas.”
Last March, the White House reported that the US special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, was in charge of conversations with Hamas for the release of hostages and ending the conflict with Israel in the Gaza Strip.
Solutions, US target
Blanco rules out any type of suspicion over the US decision.
“I believe that talking with an enemy as ruthless as Maduro, for absolutely understandable reasons, sometimes emotionally cloudy the reasoning that must prevail in the fact that it is converse, and that does not mean that the counterpart is recognized as a good person or that all the previous accusations are launched through the window.”
That means unique and exclusively, he says, that there has been a point where you can talk to see if a solution can be given to that specific matter.
“These regimes are gangsters that have their peoples trapped and negotiate for their private benefit, and as something is applied without which results are not achieved: the credible, convincing use or threat or threat, of force, is economic, political or even military, even, which makes them understand that their existence is actually negotiated,” says Blanco.
“If this is not done with those regimes that believe they can survive everything, it is not known why twisted logic, then they feel unpunished and extend the negotiations that remain rather in conversations.”
Blanco believes that the US must have in these cases “an almost academic clarity” to know what to do and not be dragged by the emotional discourse that “can unnecessarily exclude options that give advantages.”
“What would be aspirated is to resolve specific points that would change the relationship between the two parties and go from a simple punctual conversation to a broader dialogue, but none of that is promised,” he says.
