While many are concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, few want to see the United States forcibly overthrow the country’s government. Yet, for some leaders, regime change is a key strategy to pursue broader foreign policy goals. For such missions to succeed, experts warn, they must be carefully planned, require multilateral support, and take serious consideration of what comes next—or, as a recent study of declassified records shows, countries following overthrow are more likely to experience civil wars, mass killings, and other unintended consequences.
The article explores the reasons why forcible regime change so often fails and how American officials can avoid these pitfalls. First, it explains that the success of a regime change mission depends on the extent to which the intervening state can commit resources and personnel to the long-term state-building project that follows. It also argues that regime-change advocates are often misguided when they promote their campaigns as a quick fix to achieve predetermined goals, since the typical overthrow is followed by years of instability and conflict.
Finally, the article concludes that forcible regime change is rarely a necessary and legitimate tool for pursuing foreign policy goals. The exception, of course, is when a regime poses a clear and present danger to the United States or its allies. But even here, experts agree that a State’s right to self-defense must be exercised in a manner consistent with international law. Further, the act of defending a regime must satisfy the “proportionality” standard established in the UN Charter.
About the Author
