As the crisis in Venezuela intensifies, American officials are again raising the possibility of regime change. This is the covert or overt effort to remove a foreign government and replace it with one that more closely reflects a country’s own values and interests. It is an appealing idea, especially for a superpower that has been successful at toppling governments over the course of its history.
However, regime change is a dangerous policy that should be used sparingly. First, there has to be a legitimate and substantial reason to overthrow a government—that is, there needs to be a well-organized domestic opposition that can galvanize international pressure. Even then, it’s not clear that regime change would succeed.
Second, there must be a willing partner to step in and assume the role of the new government—that is, a leader who is prepared to bend to the will of the U.S. or a foreign power that supports him. This can often become a long, drawn-out nation-building project with unintended consequences that can actually undermine the desired change.
The overuse of regime change weakens other, more effective foreign policy tools—which can be less costly and more likely to succeed. A shift away from regime change toward more targeted non-lethal support for organized opposition and increased engagement with a host government can produce better policy results. But first, the American public has to understand what’s at stake.
About the Author
