I disagree with much of both the Trump Administration’s approach to Venezuela and the way that approach has been covered by the American press. The administration’s rhetoric and actions suggest a growing willingness to use force or coercion to effect regime change, while much of the commentary surrounding it treats such measures as either routine or cost-free. Neither assumption is justified, and both reflect a failure to grapple with the legal, historical, and political realities that govern U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere.
Let’s start out with the Trump Administration’s recent attacks and saber-rattling. As I’ve written before I don’t think that sinking Venezuelan boats is legal or justified let alone the “double tap” attack on the boat sunk in September. Even if they are carrying drugs for sale in the U. S. Even if the Venezuelan drug cartels are in collusion with the Venezuelan government. And a land attack on Venezuela to remove Maduro as at least implied in an interview with Politico is completely beyond the pale. As I’ve said before, it would not merely be a crime it would be a mistake.
Over the last 200 years the United States has attacked or invaded a half dozen Central and Caribbean countries and meddled in the internal politics of nearly all Central and South American countries. Invading Venezuela to effect regime change would poison relations with the other countries of this hemisphere for decades.
I am no supporter of the present Venezuelan regime, and President Maduro is a particularly nasty customer. Still, there is a critical factor that American politicians and journalists alike often overlook. Hugo Chávez was first elected president in 1998 in an election declared “clean and transparent” by international observers, and he was re-elected in 2000 in what appeared to be a similarly fair contest.
What followed was a steady erosion of electoral integrity and institutional checks, culminating in the deeply flawed processes that brought and kept Nicolás Maduro in power. Recounting this history is not meant to justify the current regime but to underscore its origins. The political system that produced today’s Venezuela began with a popular mandate freely given by Venezuelans themselves. The subsequent collapse of democratic norms and economic performance was widely predicted at the time and, in retrospect, was tragically unsurprising.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me that only Venezuelans can ultimately choose a legitimate alternative. If an external power—particularly the United States—removes the current regime, there is little reason to believe that the result will be durable or better. Absent internal legitimacy, nothing prevents the re-emergence of an equally corrupt or authoritarian successor. Prosperity, freedom, and democracy cannot be imposed from outside; they must be demanded and sustained by the people who live under them.
The US and Americans are truly hated by a majority of Latin Americans in every country south of the Rio Grande and in the Caribbean precisely because of this nonsense. While the US might get away with some missile and air strikes, a land invasion would be a disaster on the order of Viet Nam. Bolivia, Colombia, and even Brazil (a BRICS+ cofounder) would quietly open their borders with Venezuela to the free flow of arms and fighters. We would be trapped fighting there for at least a decade, and we would be defeated.
No doubt Russia, China, and our other all too numerous enemies are trying to figure out a way to lure us into a ground invasion. Considering the stupidity of Trump’s administration (worse even than Biden’s brain dead fiasco), they might well succeed.