For several months, the United States has been gathering a large fleet off the coast of Venezuela, and what initially appeared to be a trade blockade turned into a heated conflict when the capital was bombed and a helicopter group kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
Many have already realised that the operation presents a number of intellectual challenges.
Can a sitting president be tried in another country, in a jurisdiction other than his own? And if so, what would the crimes be? The drug charges have already been dismissed as vague, with the risk that the legal process will be summary and unjust.
If the Venezuelan people rose up against the incumbent vice-president and there was a change of power in the country, Maduro could possibly be tried by the new regime’s judges for crimes against his own people. And perhaps this was what the Americans were hoping for? But there seems to be no regime change on the horizon.
So what was the result of the American attack?
No change of politicians so far. The country is ruled by the vice-president with a reasonably intact army and infrastructure. Was it all just theatre?
Could leading figures in the army have been bribed to give the Americans free rein to abduct the president? The helicopters that swept over the capital should have been easy targets and could have been shot down even with unsophisticated air defences. Instead, they flew in nonchalantly and accomplished their mission, like in a Hollywood action movie, without any Americans being injured or any helicopters being fired upon.
Trump later boasted that he had ordered the country to sell oil to him, that the agreement was finalised and that the oil would be sent to the US. Given that Venezuela has one of the world’s largest oil reserves, many people are talking about oil and that it is the black gold that the Americans want. The country also has gold, bauxite and other minerals.
Another reason for the conflict is that Venezuelans have good relations with Russians, Chinese and Iranians. And that the country would somehow have served as a hub for the axis powers of evil. At the same time, the US is expanding its sphere of interest down to Brazil and up to Canada and further to Greenland. And that the attack is a response to the current political situation, where the globe is divided into spheres of interest between the superpowers, with most of South America falling to the US. But shouldn’t Cuba’s liberation have come earlier in that case? The country is only a stone’s throw from the coast of Florida. The regime in Havana has been taunting the Americans since 1959.
The abduction of another country’s head of state is, of course, a violation of international law, regardless of whether the president in question is a socialist or a communist. Now, there are people who say that such a right does not really exist and that the strong rule, but we have long tried to create a kind of regulatory framework through the UN and similar bodies to promote peace and counteract conflicts. And even if international law is not always applicable, it is a matter of agreements that many nations endorse. What would it look like if presidents around the world were kidnapped and abducted at regular intervals? Of course, there is a desire for order and stability. The United States overthrowing a government and taking over does not necessarily mean peace and freedom, as we can see from the war in Libya, for example, where the situation worsened considerably.
Of course, there are even more theories about why Trump attacked Venezuela. From the country being a hub for the election fraud carried out with digital voting machines in 2020, to corrupt departments within the CIA having their bases there, to wanting their gold reserves, to it being a centre for obscure financial activities.
We will not find out anything until the dust settles. Right now, most things seem confusing and incomplete. At the same time, Venezuela’s political system continues as if the attack were merely a minor scratch in the paintwork. Will Trump need to strike again?
