US Senator Marco Rubio launched harsh statements against
Nicolás Maduro and what he considers the misguided policies of previous
Democratic administrations toward the Venezuelan regime. According to Rubio,
for years there were attempts to negotiate with a government that never had any
real intention of fulfilling any agreement.
In his words, Maduro is not an actor with whom one can
negotiate in good faith, since—he asserts—his only strategy was to feign a
willingness to engage in dialogue to buy time and remain in power until the
arrival of a more permissive US administration.
Rubio maintained that the Venezuelan leader used
negotiations for at least three years as a distraction tactic, promising
changes he never intended to deliver, while consolidating his political control
within the country.
“The problem is believing that these people play fair.
Maduro wasn't looking for agreements; he was looking to survive politically and
wait for better international conditions,” the legislator essentially stated.
The senator also targeted sectors of the Democratic Party,
accusing them of deliberately underestimating the Chavista regime, allowing it
greater leeway, reducing international pressure, and prolonging a crisis that
has had devastating consequences for millions of Venezuelans.
For Rubio, the experience leads to a clear conclusion: a
foreign policy cannot be built on the promises of a government that has
demonstrated, time and again, that it only uses dialogue as a tool for
political manipulation.
These statements reignite the debate in Washington about
whether the negotiation strategy with Caracas was a mistake that ultimately
strengthened the very regime it sought to pressure.