A little over a week ago, the Trump administration sent shockwaves throughout the world with the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia. The Maduros are facing charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. I could question Trump's rationale for it. After all, there are multiple countries that have had unfair elections, leaders tied to drug trafficking, and/or could be construed as a threat to U.S. national security. On the flip side, I could bring up how using military force abroad without a formal declaration of war is anything but unique to Trump and actually dates back to Thomas Jefferson. Today I do not want to get into whether this capture was legal or if Trump did it for the oil. The question I hope to answer is whether this is a rare example of limited and liberty-advancing force or if this move is something that should have us worried.
Years of Socialist Tyranny
One thing I noticed is that Venezuelans across the world were cheering the capture, including Buenos Aires, Lima, Madrid, and Miami. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, turned one of the richest countries in Latin America into a bona fide basket case. About half of Venezuelans live in poverty due to the hyperinflation. The corruption is so bad that it is ranked by Transparency International as the 3rd most corrupt country on the planet. Let's say the vast majority of Venezuelans were not feeling the warmth of collectivism. The repression under Maduro got so dire that it created about 8 million Venezuelan refugees. Maduro was an oppressive tyrant and an hijo de puta that caused human suffering. His removal is reason for Venezuelans worldwide to celebrate.
Historical Precedent for Limited Military Intervention
While this seems like a victory for liberty, the broader implications of this capture need to be taken into account. As I brought up in the intro, this is hardly the first time this has happened where a president took a limited, targeted military or covert action without congressional approval. Truman did it with the Korean War, Kennedy with the Cuban missile crisis, Reagan with Grenada, Bush Sr. with Panama, Obama with Libya, and Trump last year with Iran.
I would also point out that, as anti-war as I am generally, not all uses of war are morally equivalent in terms of magnitude. A targeted intervention that seeks to end suffering and restore human rights could be justified, but it would have to be limited and proportional. If Trump's attack on Venezuela is a one-off and truly surgical, one could argue that this a military equivalent of limited government that could help avoid a much larger military intervention.
Potential for Mission Creep
Putting aside the grey area with congressional authority or the War Powers Resolution, I have to question what will happen next in Venezuela. The interim leader of Venezuela is Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro's Vice President. If the military and security infrastructures stay intact, this will be a pyrrhic victory in which the old regime under slightly different management remains, which does nothing good for Venezuela in the grand scheme of things.
Alternatively, Trump said to reporters last Wednesday that the U.S. could end up running Venezuela for years, which has the potential to be an imperial overreach that undermines democracy and international law. Mission creep in this case could result in the U.S. becoming responsible for managing Venezuela's political transition, economic recovery, or security. If that is the case, it risks the United States repeating the mistakes of Vietnam or of Afghanistan, especially if militias or pro-Maduro factions resist.
The U.S.' Track Record on Regime Change in Latin America
It is not as though the United States has the best history on regime change in Latin America. In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, which ushered in a dictatorship and a civil war. The CIA toppled Salvador Allende in Chile and ended up with the dictator Augusto Pinochet. The U.S. supporting the Contra rebels in their fight against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua led to civil war. Given the U.S.' unfortunate history with meddling in Latin America, removing Maduro could be another quagmire that makes the situation worse for years to come.
Upsetting International Order
The capture of Maduro raises profound questions about the international legal order and respect for sovereignty. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is prohibited, except in cases of self-defense. This norm exists to promote diplomatic conflict resolution, maintain peace, and preserve state sovereignty. By unilaterally removing a foreign leader, it creates a disturbing precedent in which a state could justify intervention in another country's affairs under the guise of law enforcement.
Nations like Russia or China could follow suit, turn international affairs into a free-for-all, and have military force become the go-to for settling disputes instead of diplomacy or international law. I am not here to say international law is perfect. I was questioning the efficacy of international law last week. Even in spite of imperfect international norms, breaking them without a better framework makes the world less predictable and stable. It would be a return to imperialist norms in which powerful nations felt entitled to intervene in weaker states without impunity.
Wrestling with Venezuela's Regime Change
Capturing Maduro and ousting him from his rule in Venezuela is an important milestone. Liberty may have gained a symbolic victory in Venezuela, but the next step is about who governs Venezuela, how Venezuela is governed, and whether the lives of Venezuelans are improved as a result. Without a credible, internally driven transition, Venezuela risks continued instability under different management. Whether Venezuela emerges freer, stabler, and self-deeming remains the real test and is far from finished.
No comments:
Post a Comment