What should the United States do if there is a repressive, illegally elected government in its backyard that is allegedly sponsoring a gang importing drugs into the country?
What should the United States do if there is a repressive dictatorship that openly calls the U.S. “the great satan,” threatens to build nuclear weapons, and/or invades its neighbors?
What should the United States do if an entirely isolated and closed dictatorship repeatedly threatens to destroy its closest neighbor and to use its newly acquired nuclear arsenal to possibly attack the U.S. and other nations?
Venezuela is an alleged example of the first scenario, Iraq was an example of the second, and North Korea is an ongoing example of the third.
Tough questions, and perhaps different answers for different reasons from all sides of the political spectrum. Should any analysis be predicated on the real threat to the U.S. as well as the concept of America living up to its ideals? Is the solution in some way linked to the idea that we are somehow obligated to stand up to dictators and bullies with coalitions of like-minded nations that believe in democracy and denounce and take action against possible aggressors towards our allies and ourselves? What are the real risks—nuclear annihilation, making sure we get enough oil, a safer world, less drug addiction, involvement in long-term conflicts with the possibility of direct American military action and casualties?
How about the U.N., or other international treaty groups such as NATO and the E.U.—what should their role be, and do we live up to our treaty commitments to them? Do we comply with our treaty promise to NATO that an attack on one member is an attack on all members and each nation will take actions they deem necessary, including deploying armed force, to restore security? Article 5, which contains this provision, was only invoked once, September 12, 2001, after the terrorist attacks of September 11 on the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon.
There was an interesting article in The New York Times on December 10 by two Venezuelan citizens and professors, in which they argue,” In light of the diplomatic pressure and military assets Washington has committed to the Caribbean, backing off now would not avoid disaster; it would constitute one. It would signal that a criminal dictatorship masquerading as a state can stare down the United States and win.” Their point is clear: if a dictator can discard election results and retain power without consequence, it sends a message to every authoritarian regime that they can do the same. Certainly it makes Nicolás Maduro happy, but who is going to police all elections or non-elections in autocratic regimes around the world. The U.N. can send monitors, but they have no power to intervene and the host government must allow them in the country. As a body, any permanent Security Counsel member can veto any U.N. resolution, so there is rarely the opportunity for joint actions by member nation. Additionally, there are many member states that are not true democracies with free elections.
We have no international police force or power that can attempt to enforce collective will, except one country which acted as a self-proclaimed arbiter and enforcer of democracy in the Middle East. How did that work out when Bush tried it in Iraq? Is the devil in the details? Does each situation call for detailed evaluations by the president, political and military experts, and legislators before any government policy is adopted? It seems that any conclusive decision must be predicated on the potential harm to the U.S. and its effect on our ideals, the ability and method to be used to enforce our will, the probability of success, and the effect on the rest of the world and America’s relationships around the globe.
The repositioning and misuse of our armed forces is particularly problematic, expensive, and wasteful. The changing and altering of our defense strategy and ability to respond to needs in other possible theaters of operation such as the Middle East and Asia are compromised when we move large carrier groups around as if they were checkers on a board.
What of Ukraine, invaded in violation of international law and the U.N. charter? Where is the will of the United States in repelling that incursion with all its political and appropriate military strength? We have a president who is adopting the invader’s “peace plan” in derogation of every principle we claim to stand for. He openly admires and acquiesces to every excuse and proposal of a dictator who is attempting to destroy and seize a sovereign democracy.
Is our foreign diplomacy based on the whim of one man, with no concept or knowledge of our ideals, or merely on the fact that Venezuela is a small country and cannot respond effectively to the U.S. when we violate international law and claim we are at war with them because there are drug cartels operating from its territory? Why are we not invading Mexico, China, or India, where fentanyl is produced and transshipped? My guess is because we know we cannot and because those nations are working with U.S. agencies to combat the drug traffic, even though difficulties exist because of corruption, tariffs, and other political issues—many brought about because of Trump’s mercurial foreign policy pronouncements and decisions.
I have not heard much from Trump on the issues involving Maduro’s dictatorial regime and his destruction of democracy. I have not heard him decry the dictatorship, nor have I heard him congratulate the recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, Maria Mercado, the freely elected opposition leader in Venezuela now in hiding and in fear for her life. Maybe pure jealousy, but Trump is obviously focused on Venezuela’s non-fentanyl drug dealing, its supposed effect domestically, and his own ability to appear to be doing something that has no relationship to reality. It is hard for a draft dodger to appear to be macho, but he is giving it his best shot, saying each boat blown out of the water saves 25,000 American lives, a lie of staggering proportions that he made up with no factual support.
The administration’s actions are a supposed tenet of “putting America first,” and many of his supporters accept this, not realizing that even if his limited drug-based premise is correct (it is not), there are still broader consequences involving an illegally declared war which violates American ideals, jurisprudence, and the Constitution and endangers our relations with the rest of the free world, particularly countries in this hemisphere. In addition to the foregoing, his actions against Venezuela not only fail to address the drug problem but are part of an ongoing false narrative designed to make it appear to the American people that he is taking action, even though he knows he is not.
During the Cold War, the CIA actively pursued regime change in Latin America. The results were terrible. We generally supported right-wing, dictatorial regimes and tried to disrupt more liberal governments. In a recent article in The Washington Post, the results of a 2023 report by the European Journal of Political Economy on five regime-altering attempts concluded they were disastrous for those countries and the region, stating these attempts “caused large declines in democracy scores, rule of law, freedom of speech, and civil liberties” and a 10 percent reduction of per capita income. The conclusion would seem to be that America should not assume that we have all the answers to the wold’s problems.
What to do? Invade? Sanction? Continue a hot illegal partial war? Stop and ask for a congressional resolution and bring out the facts? It is tough to be president, but being completely candid about the reality of the situation would be a good start. The idea of the United States invading nations arbitrarily on the decision of one man, a deeply flawed one, is something our founding fathers clearly wished to make impossible by requiring a declaration of war. Congress and the president should read and comply with the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) and the War Powers Act and proceed accordingly. Transparency and an independent Congress would give the best solutions.
According to The New York Times on Friday, December 12, Russia may be offering asylum to Maduro if he leaves Venezuela.
It would be a remarkably good outcome if the sanctions and legal seizure of rogue tankers lead to Maduro fleeing the country to Russia and the installation of Maria Mercado as the legally elected president of Venezuela. According to all independent poll observers, she won the last election by a landslide and had to go into hiding in fear for her life. Her daughter just accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for her in Oslo yesterday. The issues of violations of international and domestic law can be shaken out and tried in our courts and debated in Congress, which is absolutely preferable to outright armed conflict in which the U.S. president appears to insist on regime change for a completely spurious reason based on a type of drug smuggling that never occurred and continues to take illegal actions to justify an Illegally declared war. Who knows, perhaps Trump’s questionable conduct may bring a good result. As Hamlet says, taken out of context, it is “a consummation devoutly to be wished.”
I wonder how many of us would believe Trump deserves the Noble Peace if his improper past conduct results in a democratically elected president of a newly democratic Venezuala. A fascinating question of ends justifying the means.
