The recent America invasion of Venezuela and arrest of the president – Nicholas Maduro is totally unacceptable. The action undermines the sovereignty of that country, her territorial integrity, democracy and democratic norms espoused even by the invader. The action no doubt was carried out against international treaties and conventions. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. “Unilateral military action in another country’s territory is a breach of this fundamental rule, unless authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII or done in self-defence.” At no time did any organ of the United Nations endorse the invasion, while America was not in any way threatened by Venezuela, which may require self-defence.
Emphasising on the need for non-interference, Prof. M.T Ladan, “the principle of state sovereignty is foundational to international law. It grants every state exclusive control over its territory, free from external interference. The ICJ, in cases like the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case, affirmed that the unauthorized presence and military action of foreign forces on another state’s territory is a violation of its sovereignty and a breach of the principle of non-intervention.”
However, there are two sides to a coin. Flip each side to fully have a grasp of the head and or tail of every story. Therefore, despite breaking international protocols, the Venezuelan case has perspectives to it which many have ignored or are not aware of like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gaza –Â the land in dispute belongs to both Israel and Palestine. Both have every reason to claim ownership. The only snag is the politics of blood-letting around it and the eventual humanitarian catastrophe leading to loss of lives and properties.
Whichever side one aligns with in global politics is dependent on one’s choice, religion, knowledge, perception, and understanding. Unfortunately, globally induced conflict is not created in isolation but strategic to sustaining the interests, economy, and ego of nations involved through seizure of resources of the invaded and enrichment of Western or European industrial military complex. Even as Maduro turned out a democratic nightmare to himself and his people, the case of Venezuela stands to enrich America and it’s allies.
The animosity between America and Venezuela is not new to global politics. Once upon a time, American oil companies like Exxon invested heavily in Venezuela’s oil and gas industry – building refineries, rail lines, pipelines, ports for oil shipment and even training of personnel. According to International Business Times, “before nationalization, Exxon’s clear documented investment in its Venezuelan oil project (the Cerro Negro project) was approximately $750 million.”
However, on January 1, 1976, under President Carlos Andrés Pérez, the Venezuelan state nationalised oil companies (built by America). The second nationalisation and takeover of foreign assets took place under President Hugo Chávez, who died of cancer. Nicholas Maduro was his Vice. China, Russia and Iran were embraced as major allies for partnership and sustenance of government, oil exploration, production, sales, other security and diplomatic exigencies. That has been the tradition from the era of Hugo Chavez till the ouster of Maduro, who strongly toed the line of his predecessor.
American companies sought ways and means of reclaiming monies invested through international litigations; pursuing much larger compensation claims, which reflected both investment and the future value it lost due to expropriation to no avail. Most importantly, the last election on July 8, 2024 which brought Maduro back to power was widely disputed and adjudged to have been rigged in favour of the incumbent. It is assumed that Maduro sat on a stolen mandate, coupled with attacks on the opposition and violations of citizens’ rights. These aside of oil are the bones of contention.
Interestingly, America does not forget easily or abandon it’s own in trouble. It’s only a matter of time before she extracts her pounds of flesh from perceived enemies. Former presidents of America approached the issue of Venezuela their own unique ways in line with the dictates of their government’s policy direction but their ways cannot be the way of Trump.
The Democrats seem to be nice guys, but will still punish perceived enemies severely. Former presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama and Biden had imposed strict sanctions on Venezuela the way they thought was good enough to squeeze life out of the country. It actually did as Venezuela’s economy is increasingly troubled leading to inflation and worsening economic crisis, soaring living costs, and a plunging currency at all time low.
Trump is a realist who takes pride in his country’s power and might as an instrument of international relations. He does not pander with words or cover state policy decisions with euphemism. Trump is clearly out to assert America’s military might as a means to achieve state wide diplomatic intents. He is deploying strong military-driven tactics and policies to awaken leaders to properly adhere to democratic rules and see it for what it is – government of the people or face harsh consequences. Democratically elected dictators have been jolted and placed in their rightful corners. Trump has announced that America will run the affairs of Venezuela until such a time normalcy returns with about 50 million barrels of crude to be moved first to America. It is certain that Trump will manage the oil companies and recover age long lost funds.
Evidently, the approach to Iraq, Libya and Venezuela invasions are relatively not the same. Venezuela is not under siege or attack over American physical takeover and occupation. Regime change just happened with the Vice President Celcy Rodriguez recorgnised by the law as the new Venezuela’s leader.
The case of Maduro should serve as a lesson to leaders who think sovereignty exits as immunity to sustain bad governance and undemocratic actions. Those who think they can cover the sins against democracy with claims of sovereignty and territorial integrity instead of legitimacy, rule of law, and good governance, like chickens, should watch how the guinea fowl is being roasted.
The fall of Maduro has revealed that even if one member of the Security Council violates any international treaty and convention, no member frontally challenges it. Therefore, building alliances with Russia or China may not necessarily guarantee needed support, safety or protection of bad leaders when the interest of America or any other security council member is at stake. Russia’s lukewarm posture on the attack on Venezuela shows some level of reciprocation to the restraint America showed without major direct intervention of boots on ground when Putin invaded Ukraine.
Trump is loud, arrogant and defiantly firm but definitely not mad. Venezuela’s case is unique with it’s own peculiarities. If Maduro was a shining example of good leadership and democratic governance, the people of Venezuela would have been sad over his arrest and ouster. But, many were seen dancing and jubiliating.
Sunday Onyemaechi Eze, lecturer, Department of Mass Communication and Head, Internationalisation and Partnership, Coal City University, Enugu
