The latest US-Venezuela conflict has seen the crisis reach new frontiers with the latest wave of the decades-old struggle. It is dramatic when President Donald Trump says that it will operate Venezuela until such a time as it can successfully achieve a safe, proper, and correct transition afterwards once the US hits and arrests Venezuela’s leader, Nicolas Maduro. Maduro and his wife have been reported to have been taken to the United States, where he is indicted in New York to face charges related to drugs. Such measures proposed by the Trump administration have become a boon to narcotics trafficking and transnational crime. Nevertheless, there is a larger and even more shocking question that is being discussed in Latin America and other regions of the world: Is it drugs or oil?
Washington formally supports the need for security. The US authorities accuse the Maduro government of flooding the American streets with drugs and offering a free hand to gangs and criminal networks. Not only is this picture of Venezuela that of a failed state, but it is also a direct threat to the national security of the US. This is carried by the rhetoric of Trump, in which law and order, border security, and the annihilation of what Trump describes as a narco-state are primary values.
However, this explanation has been challenged by analysts, defence professionals, and critics of US foreign policy. Venezuela is proud to have the world’s largest oil reserves, a fact that overshadows any description of the nation’s geopolitical significance. Those who criticise the viewpoint argue that the discourse of counter-narcotics has become an easy sell of an even more primitive game: control over strategic resources. The commentary of Trump himself, on multiple occasions, has pointed out that the American companies used to enjoy free operations in Venezuela and that their oil rights were stolen. The fact that he has reverted to this stance many times in past press conferences has cast doubt on the claim that it is only the security issue driving the US’s moves; it is actually business interests.
The oil and drugs debate is not a new one, but the current crisis has exposed it. The professionals in the defence sector, who have been appearing on televised debates and policy round tables, have questioned the credibility of the evidence against the drug allegations against Maduro, suggesting that corruption and criminality are actual issues. Still, perhaps the scope and the focal point of narcotics trafficking are being exaggerated. However, they say that the oil business in Venezuela was among the most fruitful in the world. Still, this business has always been the subject of a dispute between Washington and Caracas. Sanctions, freezing of assets, and diplomatic isolation have already ripped the industry apart; direct intervention can likely be a demonstration that the regime is actually the target.
The degree of such perception is particularly high in the Global South, where the memories of past interventions remain so vivid. From Iraq to Libya, crafty nations have been made to bow down under intense foreign demands in the name of security, democracy, or humanitarianism. The example of Venezuela is a repeat of a bad practice: powerful nations demand global standards and apply them at their own discretion. Washington does not necessarily press the stronger states with the same intensity that some analysts have predicted. Still, it will decide to pressure weaker states or those that are isolated, where the risks are minimal, and leverage is higher.
Questions as to sovereignty and international law are also of concern. Such legal and moral problems as the arrest and transfer of a current head of state without the explicit consent of international organisations such as the UN Security Council are a concern. People opposing it by establishing multilateral institutions declare that the global order that the United States takes pride in is weakened. The proponents of the act retaliate by arguing that extraordinary measures are needed to counter extraordinary threats, especially when geopolitical differences obstruct international processes.
The other facet of the crisis is the risk of internal betrayal in Venezuela. According to his assumption, certain observers hold that this part of the political or military elite could have facilitated Maduro’s capture as an act of self-preservation or to secure Washington’s guarantees. It would be true to that degree, how Venezuela has been torn into fragments because of the prolonged sanctions and isolation. However, it would also highlight the dangers of external pressure policies that reward defection rather than dialogue, which could lead to a more unstable situation.
The new critique has developed against international institutions. The sense of marginalisation of the UN Security Council is a continuation of the denial of collective decision-making in international relations. The extensive powers to act without consulting others in the pretext of urgency or even a sense of moral necessity are the ones that erode the rules against the coercion of others by smaller states. This is a significant concern for Latin America, which has a record of foreign influence.
At the same time, it would be naive to deny the very fact that there is a problem with the drug issue. The institutional failure in Venezuela has created space for criminal networks, and neighbouring states have felt the spillover. The question is whether the most valid or best way to handle these issues is through military attack and the forcible change of leadership. These actions, according to critics, are mechanisms of establishing another long-term war zone in Venezuela that will intensify the humanitarian crises and instability in the area.
The manner in which Trump presented the crisis as a temporary US occupation of Venezuela until the instance of a legitimate transition resembles trusteeship, a highly controversial notion in postcolonial politics. Who defines what is proper or judicious? And who is assured that the transition serves the interests of other parties rather than the Venezuelan people? These are questions that remain unanswered.
Ultimately, this crisis between the US and Venezuela illustrates a conflict in contemporary geopolitics. Is the world’s superpower acting to uphold ordinary standards, or in the interest of the nation, based on a moral imperative? It cannot be found in the official words, but in the sequel: Will Venezuelan oil resources be opened to foreign enterprises? Will sanctions be varied to eliminate humanitarian suffering? And will a genuinely inclusive political process be cultivated rather than imposed?
Oil or drugs? The reality may be an unput-together combination of the two. Nevertheless, the crisis can be easily cited as another illustration of the global law that the politics of power can still prevail over international law; unless the principles of sovereignty, international law, and multilateralism are respected, the people of Venezuela have to pay the highest price.
The writer is a Professor, International Relations, University of Chittagong, and Deputy Director, Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies (RCAS)
