While it is only February, it has already been a tumultuous year for geopolitics after the United States military abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife from their home on Jan. 3.
This global controversial event has Americans divided over the ethics of the situation.
According to an article published by TIME, the intervention from the U.S. was intended to force regime change. Our government also argued that Maduro was operating a system of “narco-terrorism.”
This was a clear overreach by the U.S.
Some Americans believe it was beneficial since it freed Venezuelan citizens from a dictatorship. While this may be true in some ways, taking this action was unprincipled and will end up having negative consequences for both the U.S. and Venezuela.
Freeing citizens from a dictatorship is inherently positive, but it’s not our country’s role to intervene in such an intrusive way. Especially since America’s actions recently have led our country to use the leverage gained with this intrusion to extract oil and the wealth that comes along with it.
Will other countries get involved, especially Venezuelan allies Iran, China, and Russia? How will Maduro’s supporters react? Can President Donald Trump and the U.S. just decide that other countries’ leaders are unfit and remove them to institute their own government?
Will this ultimately stir up a global conflict?
America’s actions in Venezuela have created many foreign policy questions and none of the answers seem good.
An article published by the BBC explains that bosses of U.S. oil firms said that this new Venezuelan influence has been a fantastic opportunity for them. Of course it has. Venezuela is rich in oil reserves.
Trump also said the U.S. will benefit from the situation and get lower energy prices.
Trump additionally signed an executive called Safeguarding Venezuelan Oil Revenue for the Good of the American and Venezuelan People. Although the title seems benign, the motive behind the order isn’t.
The order says the U.S. will be in control of the revenue Venezuela generates from the sale of their oil, and that it will be held in our Treasury in a branch called the Foreign Government Deposit Funds. This means that the U.S. is in control of all the money Venezuela has from their oil sales, and can do as they please with it now that Maduro is gone.
Venezuela is in a precarious position as their main source of income is now in another country’s hands.
This is detrimental to global order. Yes, a dictator was removed from power in a country that had been struggling under his rule for years. But at the same time, the U.S. has just set an example for other countries that could encourage them to do the same thing and seize whatever leaders they see as unfit using their power, and profit off of it.
While the removal of Maduro was a necessity, as under his rule Venezuela suffered poverty, starvation, and an economic crisis, the US has just replaced one unstable government with another.
It’s comparable to Britain controlling the U.S. before our independence. Britain used the early colonies and states for their income and resources, just how, ironically, America is now using Venezuela for the profit of their oil.
Kidnapping Maduro was a flex of America’s power. But such as show of power looks like a threat to other countries, which might inspire even more foreign instability.
In an article from the Transnational Institute, titled “Maduro’s Abduction and the Future Global Order,” the author states that Maduro’s seizure and transfer to the U.S. can be characterized as abduction and sits uneasily with the UN Charter and principles of nonintervention and non-abduction.
This excerpt reiterates the violation of moral code that the Trump Administration breached by capturing Maduro.
Similarly, TIME states that many legal experts and lawmakers are concerned about the legality of Trump’s attack on Venezuela, saying that his administration has killed civilians without due process and used force against Venezuela without evidence of an imminent threat or authorization.
It is extremely unethical for the U.S. to kidnap a leader of a foreign country and direct the government for their benefit.
The U.S. is using Venezuela as an asset to attain oil, money and control.
Civilians are suffering numbers of casualties instead of being aided from this intervention.
Instead of liberty and justice for all, all America gains from this intervention is power and money for itself.
