While many Americans are worried about the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, few want to see President Maduro ushered out of office by force. Yet that is exactly what would happen if the United States pursued its current regime change policy.
Regime change consists of any covert action taken by one country to overthrow another government and replace it with an alternative one. It can take the form of supporting military coups or simply funding opposition movements and propaganda to undermine an incumbent’s popularity. The goal is to convince the citizens that they will be better off under a new leader, and the US government often takes advantage of skepticism about the existing regime to bolster its case for intervening.
But scholarly evidence shows that armed regime-change missions rarely succeed as intended. In fact, they usually make things worse. For example, scholars argue that a regime-change mission is more likely to lead to civil war if it is conducted without popular support. It is also more likely to result in increased human rights abuses and more instability within the targeted country.
It may be in American national interest to promote democratic institutions around the world, but overusing armed regime-change operations diminishes their effectiveness. It also undercuts the utility of other foreign policy tools, like enhancing economic and diplomatic engagement, which are more effective at advancing American goals. And it enables America’s peer competitors to perceive the United States as a threat.
About the Author
