Extract from ABC News
Analysis
The Venezuelan regime was by no means popular but Donald Trump's seizure of its leader sets a dangerous precedent. (ABC News: Lindsay Dunbar)
The United States' military operation to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from his home in Caracas was stunningly successful in achieving its ambition, and generated new levels of hyperbole from US President Donald Trump.
"This was one of the most stunning, effective, and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history," he told a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.
But even in a world that has grown accustomed to a cavalier attitude toward international law from Mr Trump, the move's blatant disregard for its strictures stunned political leaders and commentators around the world.
To be fair, none of the analysis in recent months of what the US might do as it ramped up its threats to Venezuela and Mr Maduro contemplated the possibility of the effective abduction of the authoritarian leader.
Scenarios in which the US would move its military attacks onto land were raised and usually dismissed because of the US president's stated reluctance to get involved in ground campaigns.
The prospects of an internal coup, or of Mr Maduro willingly handing over power, also seemed unlikely.
And whatever scenarios were contemplated, most analysts argued that sudden regime change was fraught with peril.
International Group analyst Phil Gunson, for example, wrote recently that "a clear majority of Venezuelans want Maduro gone".
"But the assumption that forcefully overthrowing the current government will lead to a smooth transition to democracy is dangerous," he said.
"Venezuela is full of armed groups that would resist the regime's collapse and undermine any effort to restore the rule of law. Generals currently loyal to Maduro might install an even more repressive leader.
"Without a viable strategy for what comes after the government falls, ousting Maduro could lead to even greater repression and hardship for Venezuelans."
So, while the world debates the questionable legality of what the US has done and questions Mr Trump's claim that the US will now "run" Venezuela, the realities of what happens next in the oil-rich South American country will be largely determined by the complexities of power in Venezuela and the implications of the American move for other countries in the region, including Colombia and Cuba.
Apart from the repressive regime, the Venezuelan economy is on the verge of collapse, with the IMF predicting inflation of 700 per cent and 8 million people leaving the country in recent years because of the dire situation.
Western response to US operation muted
Let's be clear: Nicolás Maduro will not be widely mourned at home or abroad.
"The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote on social media.
"We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
But Mr Starmer was at pains to distance the UK from the operation and refused to say whether he believed it complied with international law.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also said Mr Maduro had "led his country into ruin" and that the most recent election was "rigged." Germany has not recognised the Maduro presidency.
But he added that relations between countries must follow the principles of international law and warned that political instability in Venezuela could worsen.
Donald Trump sitting next to CIA director John Ratcliffe and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as they watch Saturday's military operation in Venezuela. (@realDonaldTrump/Truth Social)
The United Nations was much blunter, with a spokesman for Secretary-General António Guterres saying he was "deeply alarmed by the recent escalation in Venezuela, culminating with today's United States military action in the country, which has potential worrying implications for the region".
"Independently of the situation in Venezuela, these developments constitute a dangerous precedent. The secretary-general continues to emphasise the importance of full respect — by all — of international law, including the UN Charter," the statement continued.
"He's deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected."
But it is equally concerning that world leaders in general have been so relatively meek in speaking out about the new low the country that used to regard itself as the leader of the free world has set for international relations.
What's to stop other countries now mounting military operations to kidnap the leaders of other countries and proclaim that they are now running them?
As a sign of just how far things have moved in terms of both US policy and the bounds of what is acceptable international behaviour, we only need to look to past statements of Mr Trump's director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who had previously criticised US policy towards Venezuela.
"The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future," Ms Gabbard said in a January 2019 post on X.
"We don't want other countries to choose our leaders, so we have to stop trying to choose theirs."
Tensions between Nicolás Maduro and the US president have remained high since the first Trump presidency. (Reuters: Leonardo Fernandez Viloria)
In the meantime, the US president seemed to suggest he intended to get his way in Venezuela via the threat that other leaders would find themselves in a similar situation to Mr Maduro if they did not cooperate.
"This extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives," Mr Trump said.
"Very importantly, the embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect. The American armada remains poised in position, and the United States retains all military options until United States demands have been fully met and fully satisfied.
"All political and military figures in Venezuela should understand what happened to Maduro can happen to them, and it will happen to them if they aren't just, fair, even to their people."
He also specifically threatened both Cuba and Colombia, saying that "if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned", and that Colombia's President Gustavo Petro should "watch his ass".
Concerns regime downfall could aid armed groups
A question left hanging in the wake of the events of recent hours — given the administration has left other key figures in the Maduro power structure in place — is whether there has been any complicity between the US and some of these elites in the move against Mr Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez repeatedly publicly insisted on Venezuela's sovereignty — even as Mr Trump insisted she had told Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Venezuela would cooperate with US demands.
Venezuelans celebrate after the US strikes on Caracas and seizure of president Nicolás Maduro. (Reuters: Luisa Gonzalez)
But there are other, much more powerful figures still in place in Venezuela: Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López and Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, who both control key elements of the regime's security and defence establishments, and who have also vowed defiance.
Whatever deal may have been done has to get around the fact that there are powerful factions in Venezuela that don't just control the security apparatus but also large parts of the economy, particularly the oil industry, which is so much a focus of Mr Trump's interest.
The ICG's Phil Gunson wrote in Foreign Affairs in November that "the fall of Maduro could also empower Venezuela's patchwork of non-state armed groups, including Colombian guerillas and criminal gangs".
"These powerful organisations fear what might come after the current regime and are likely to resist any restoration of the rule of law," he said.
"The National Liberation Army, a Colombian Marxist guerilla group that first took up arms in the 1960s, may have thousands of armed combatants in Venezuela. To the extent that these fighters are held in check under Maduro, it is because of the organisation's alliance with the current government.
"The same applies to other armed groups. The so-called colectivos, bands of armed civilian thugs who serve leading politicians, are entrenched in several major cities.
"Despite Trump's claims, Maduro is not the head of the infamous Tren de Aragua, a powerful criminal network that has spread across the Venezuelan diaspora over the past decade and that Trump has officially designated as a terrorist group.
"But government officials have benefited from close relations with the gang. After Maduro became president in 2013, his government began trying to curb a soaring murder rate by signing non-aggression pacts with Tren de Aragua and other armed groups, an arrangement that ultimately allowed them to become more powerful.
"The precarious stability between these groups and the government would be likely to collapse with Maduro's exit, especially if change were to come suddenly and challenge the hold that the president's allies have on the levers of power."
Whatever happens next in Venezuela will be Donald Trump's legacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment