As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela grows, many Americans are concerned that the United States is pursuing regime change there. Regime change policies are those that involve overt or covert foreign intervention with the intention of changing a country’s government or political power structure. They are different from “democratic promotion,” which is a set of policy tools that support democracy and other democratic norms within a state.
There are many reasons why the use of armed force to promote regime change is problematic. First, regime-change operations rarely succeed as intended. Even when they do, they often have unintended consequences, such as humanitarian crises and weakened internal security in the targeted state. Second, they undermine the effectiveness of other tools that are better suited to promoting freedom and advancing American security interests.
Third, regime change campaigns typically erode democracy. They tend to reshape the nation’s judicial framework, eroding the separation of powers and other critical democratic institutions, and pushing the target country toward an autocratic path. Moreover, they also typically destabilize the targeted state and empower factions that are as or more dangerous than those previously in power.
In addition, regime-change campaigns are usually illegal in international law. The forcible removal of a government outside the scope of self-defense violates fundamental rules of international law, including the principle of non-interference and the requirement that States must respect the autonomy of other States. Proponents of regime-change tactics must thus make a strong case that the operation is necessary and legitimate to overcome these concerns.