We often think that we will not ignore the lessons of history, that we will react in time before the next civil instability becomes a full-fledged humanitarian crisis. We know that the Syrian refugee crisis began with violent demonstrations in 2011, then a civil war that reached Aleppo in 2012, but only attracted worldwide concern in 2015 when millions of refugees began to flee their war-torn nation and into the supposed sanctuary of Europe. While the tipping point hasn’t been reached (yet), we should take note that Venezuelans have vaulted into first place among those seeking asylum in the United States. Their plight is complex, but it still mandates our concern.
Venezuela, while maintaining “democratic” elections, has a tenuous political landscape. In recent years, thousands of citizens have fled the country, which is rapidly sinking into the depths of hyperinflation, high unemployment, and shortages of vital food and medicine; all signs of economic disruption. The unemployment rate rose from 7.4 percent in 2015 to a projected 25 percent in 2017. The economy shrank by 18 percent in 2016, the third consecutive year of losing value. Violent protests resulted, and scores of protestors have tragically lost their lives. Using fiscal year data, 14,728 sought asylum in the United States in 2016, versus 5,605 in 2015. So far, it appears that that number will only increase in the coming year, spurred by predictions that a quarter of the population will be unemployed and that the inflation rate will top 1,000 percent. Indeed, Venezuelans now comprise one-fifth of all asylum applicants to the United States. Venezuela is now one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
Venezuelans are fleeing at a dramatically increasing pace. The majority of Venezuelans who lack resources are forced to seek relief in neighboring nations such as Colombia and Brazil, both of which share a border with Venezuela of more than 1,000 miles. Most Venezuelans tend to go to Colombia—which shares the same Spanish language— but which has only recently recovered from a long-fought guerrilla war. In January 2017, more than 47,000 Venezuelans came to Colombia. Many come seeking medical care, and since they are unable to pay, it is putting an enormous strain on Colombia's health care system. In addition, Colombia prohibits foreigners from attending school, so the Venezuelan refugees have no educational resources, making it unfeasible to stay in the country. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos announced in April that Venezuelans who frequently cross the border will be given new identification cards. Then, anyone who lacks a passport or other identification will be considered "illegal" and will be barred entry. At present, it is easy to get the cards, and there are many places to cross nearby, but this may change.
Despite the preference for Colombia as a refuge, more than 12,000 have fled permanently to Brazil, with many locating to the sparsely populated state of Roraima. In Roraima, poor and sick Venezuelans have overwhelmed and already strained the local housing and health care systems. They also face an immigration policy dating back to the military junta era (1964-1985) that stresses "national security" and discourages asylum seekers. As a result, while Venezuelan refugees legally should be permitted to at least temporarily work in Brazil, this is rarely the case, leading some to turn to prostitution and others left without proper redress when employers refuse to pay them. Others face the possibility of deportation without warning or appeal. (Particularly vulnerable are the Warao indigenous people, who speak neither Spanish nor Portuguese.) While the courts and human rights organizations have prevented some mass deportations, the legal status of asylum seekers remains in flux.
According to Human Rights Watch, Venezuelans in Brazil have overwhelmingly cited economic hardship as the reason for leaving, along with fear of crime, and none cited political reasons. Through interviews with scores of refugees, the group documented cases where people traveled hundreds of miles to try to get access to drugs for hypertension, HIV and AIDS, chemotherapy for cancer patients, and other serious health conditions. In one case, a woman likely to have a premature birth was put in a car (she had to pay for gas) along with a nurse and driven to Brazil, as Venezuela has no ability to provide care for the premature infant. The lack of vaccinations in Venezuela has also resulted in several documented cases of chickenpox. Economic hardship, however, is not a legal basis for immigration, and since Brazilian immigration policy makes legal immigration nearly impossible, the only way to stay in Brazil is to request asylum. Venezuelans seeking asylum in Brazil jumped from only 54 in 2013 to more than 2,500 from in 2016. Most of these seek asylum in Roraima, where asylum seekers rose from a total of nine in 2014 to 2,230 in 2016. The Brazilian Justice of Ministry has been extremely slow in responding to these requests, granting 34 of 89 requests (among 4,670 applications) through 2016.
Surprisingly (or not so much), the majority of Venezuela's current difficulties stem from its singular dependence on its native oil industry. Hugo Chávez, President from 1999 until his death in 2013, was a charismatic leader albeit a cruel dictator, who adopted a left-wing stance, railing against the elites and the United States while aligning himself within the sphere of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s influence. While controversial abroad, Chavez was popular domestically. In 2006, he won reelection 63 percent of the vote, and in 2010 his party won a majority in the National Assembly. Chávez repeatedly defeated democratic attempts to unseat him from power. In 2002, he survived a coup attempt (which he blamed on the United States). In 2004, Chávez won 59 percent of the vote to defeat a recall referendum. In 2007, he pulled Venezuela out of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and completed the nationalization of oil fields. and he won succeeding elections through 2012, when he was already terminally ill with cancer.
President Chávez used his charisma and political position to allure and collude with oil producers to promote higher oil prices worldwide, which helped bring in more money and allowed him to carry on broad social welfare programs, some novel for the region. President Chavez expanded El Sistema, a music program that has instructed millions of children, many living in extreme poverty, in classical music, including playing instruments and often participating in more than 250 orchestras, including the world renowned Simón Bolivar Youth Orchestra. Gustavo Dudamel, its most famous conductor, is also now the Music and Artistic Director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic. Also, by the time of his death in 2013, Venezuela had donated 200 million gallons of oil, worth $400 million, to poor Americans, at a time when Congress had cut aid for fuel assistance.
President Nicolás Maduro, also a cruel dictator, who came to power in 2013 after the death of Chavez, lacks the charisma and ability of his predecessor. He has wavered in key areas, delaying local and regional elections and lumping leftists and moderates with those who are trying to overthrow the government as equal opponents. President Maduro responded to the recent crisis by raising the minimum wage by 60 percent and increased food stamps, even allowing them to be deposited and used as money. He did not tackle with currency reform, and he blamed the economic woes on measures taken by his political opponents.
Critics charged that the socialist government since 1999 has been disastrous, that Chávez was a dictator, constantly seeking to expand and lengthen his term in office. While Chávez promoted education and health care for the poor, the nation remained poor in spite of oil revenue squandered during years when prices were higher. They also claim that since 1999, about 2 million Venezuelans have fled the country, that the Organization of American States (OAS) has repeatedly called on Venezuela to deal with its problems, and that the IMF has projected that the inflation rate could hit more than 2,000 percent in 2018.
Proponents of Chávez say that this ignores history, that the United States, OAS, and the IMF have not helped the people of Latin America. The United States government played a pivotal role in the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). In each case, the United States sought to undermine the elected government, planted propaganda to inflame the situation, and encouraged the coups that resulted in the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people over decades. They point out that the current demonstrations are similar to those that preceded the coup attempt against Chávez in 2002. Why, they ask, is it so important to depose presidents during their term, when regular elections will surely take place? They point to Brazil, whose legislature deposed its leftist President in 2016, in spite of there being no charges against her. In contrast, the current president, who backs austerity measures, has been charged with bribery, and has called on the army to protect him against tens of thousands of protesters, but the United States and OAS offer no criticism of him. Their position might be summed up by a poor American who received a free Venezuelan offer and was told she should not accept it because it came from a socialist government. She responded: "How can you criticize someone who is helping people? What are the people who are criticizing doing to help?"
Regardless of one’s political position, people in Venezuela cannot afford food or essential medicine, and are fleeing in large numbers. Local and regional elections should be scheduled to ease fears of a dictatorship. Political factions that do not seek the violent overthrow of the government should be brought in to the process. The government should acknowledge its temporary inability to provide food and medical care to its people. Internationally, the Pope (who is from Argentina, has experience with juntas and leftist governments, and already helped negotiate between the United States and Cuba) might be an ideal candidate to help mediate the dispute and head off civil war or a coup.
Unfortunately, the current American administration seems ill-disposed to help. As early as 2015, Donald Trump tweeted: "Druggies, drug dealers, rapists and killers are coming across the southern border." Constant efforts to curtail immigration as a whole, including a Muslim ban, and continuing efforts to construct a wall on the border with Mexico, do not give us hope that President Trump or his diplomatic apparatus will act with compassion towards those who find themselves in a dire situation. Indeed, under his watch it has become more difficult for Venezuelans to receive American visas.
A more constructive approach was offered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his "Four Freedoms" speech in January 1941, on the eve of the Second World. The third freedom cited was "Freedom from want." If we could apply this concept to an international standard for immigration and refugee, we would greatly reduce future misery for those who are hungry and in need of medical care. Let us not repeat the mistakes of inaction that are occurring with Syria, with Yemen, with Sudan and indeed, in places all over the world where people suffer every day needlessly. We need to take action before it is too late, though it is difficult to say with precision whether it should be diplomatic or military in nature. God forbid the latter. I agree with the expert advice that “A better approach would combine more aggressive multilateral diplomacy with targeted use of unilateral carrots and sticks.” Awareness has to be raised. Let us hope it allows us to put pressure on those in power who can actually affect positive change. There may be a slim hope, but hope nonetheless.
Rabbi Dr. Shmuly Yanklowitz is the President & Dean of the Valley Beit Midrash, the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Founder and CEO of The Shamayim V’Aretz Institute and the author of ten books on Jewish ethics. Newsweek named Rav Shmuly one of the top 50 rabbis in America and the Forward named him one of the 50 most influential Jews.