Is the US Intervention in Venezuela a Beginning?

World politics made a rapid start to the new year. While ceasefire and peace talks continued in Europe over the Russia-Ukraine war, the US used allegations that Venezuelan leaders had ‘abused public trust for 25 years and imported tons of cocaine into the United States by corrupting once legitimate institutions’ The U.S. Indictment of Maduro Cites Cocaine Smuggling. Venezuela’s Role in the Trade Is Believed to Be Modest. - The New York Times

The U.S. Indictment of Maduro Cites Cocaine Smuggling. Venezuela’s Role in the Trade Is Believed to Be Modest. - The New York Times

Rather than debating whether the operation conducted by the United States without a United Nations resolution is legal in terms of international relations, I will attempt to explain and interpret what the United States is trying to achieve in terms of its Security Strategy.

The removal of a head of state from office by another state, to be tried by the judiciary of the state conducting the operation, has caused a huge stir around the world. Although some commentators claim this operation is the FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE WORLD, a similar incident occurred in 1989 when Panama was INVADED by the US on the grounds that its head of state had committed the crimes of ‘drug trafficking and money laundering’. The head of state, Manuel Noriega, was taken to the US, tried, and sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, it would be wrong to think that this was the last of the US's interventions in Latin America to date. This operation is paving the way for the US's next moves.

Although the United States' security strategy emerged from its founding philosophy, it has been clearly implemented within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine since 1824. This doctrine states that the security of the United States, its intellectual and economic development in terms of freedom, and most importantly, its WORLD HEGEMONY, depend on the complete and irreversible elimination of the influence and power of the old world (such as Britain, France, and Russia) Kenneth N. Waltz clearly states in his book Theory of International Politics, which examines international political theories, that the United States' security, intellectual and economic development, and most importantly, its GLOBAL HEGEMONY, depend on the permanent elimination of the activities and influence of the old world (such as Britain, France and Russia) in the Western Hemisphere, and that American presidents have pursued American foreign policy in this direction.

It is clear that a country renowned as a land of freedom, within the framework of controlling this sphere of influence, will cooperate with any government that pledges allegiance to it, even if it is a dictatorship (indeed, dictatorial regimes are more suitable), rather than establishing democracy in the Western Hemisphere. The real aim is to facilitate access to energy and raw materials and ensure that trade routes are free from any restrictions, primarily so that the US, which alone accounts for approximately 25% of the world's total production, can continue to produce and supply its goods to the world market. To this end, the US will always take any action necessary, disregarding international law and ethical rules.

Turning to Venezuela, as highlighted in the report published by the UN rapporteur following his visit to the country in February 2024, it is a country in deep poverty, with 82% of its population living in poverty and 52% unable to access even basic food. This data alone is sufficient to understand the dire situation the country finds itself in. However, according to the latest figures released, a striking picture emerges globally in terms of crude oil reserves, with Venezuela at the top of the list with 303.22 billion barrels. Venezuela is followed by Saudi Arabia with 267.19 billion barrels and Iran with 208.60 billion barrels.

The two economic data points mentioned above paint an inconsistent picture. In fact, it would be accurate to say that this picture is the result of the embargo imposed by the United States.

As a result of STATE POLICIES implemented with determination and perseverance over many years, it is clear that the US has shaped the target country in line with the principle of ‘shaping the battlefield’ in military terminology. Of course, the US embargo is not the only reason. The fact that almost all South American countries are ruled by dictatorships, political instability, bribery, poor governance, and the inability to remain in power without collaborating with drug cartels, even if elected, are factors that have created fertile ground. In the specific case of Venezuela, the main reasons are that Hugo Chavez, before Maduro, cancelled the concessions of foreign oil companies in the country and kicked them out (hindering the US's quick and easy access to energy), the inability to find support to transfer technology and extract oil, and the fact that production was limited and carried out with outdated technology, meaning that the revenue generated could not create prosperity across the country.

So, is the reason for the US's interest solely because Venezuela is rich in oil reserves, as indicated by the data above?

Venezuela's location in the northernmost tip of the South American continent, alongside economic data such as its rich natural resources, particularly oil and gold, highlights the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of Venezuela's geographical position, as it controls the Panama Canal, the Caribbean Sea, and the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico. (Map 1 – Cover Image).

Such aggressive interventions by the US are not new. It acts as soon as it perceives its economic interests to be harmed or critical points on the world map to fall within the sphere of influence of its rivals. For example, after a period of ups and downs since the Panama Canal was built and operated by the Americans, the canal was transferred to Panamanian sovereignty on 31 December 1999, pursuant to an agreement reached in 1977 between US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian President Omar Torrijos. The Trump administration has repeatedly stated that it will take back the Canal, claiming that it has fallen under Chinese control due to the high cost of Panama Canal transit fees and Panama's rapprochement with China.

Another example of this is the attacks by Yemeni Houthis on commercial ships in the Gulf of Aden, which have disrupted trade in the Red Sea and, of course, the Suez Canal's trade between Asia -Europe/Mediterranean Basin trade and energy flows.

Map 2

As the bipolar world order evolves into a multipolar one, the EU and China are coming to the fore alongside the US and Russia. Currently, Russia appears to be the only military counterweight to the US among these rivals, but no other country except China can yet match the economic power of the US.

In recent years, the United States has been pressuring the EU to establish its own security and defence forces, stemming from its desire to create a military counterbalance to Russia. This allows the United States to reduce its military presence in various parts of the world, such as Afghanistan and the Middle East, and concentrate its forces to create a CENTRE OF GRAVITY in the ASIA-PACIFIC. This is because the Asia-Pacific region and the maritime trade routes reaching Asia, as well as Asia's opening up to the world market through these routes and its approach to breaking the US economic hegemony, are important in terms of containing China, and the US is seeking to consolidate this containment through agreements with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India. Of course, China is attempting to support its economic power, which is being restricted by sea, with land routes through the ‘BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE’ (Map 3) on the chessboard. At the same time, as a result of China's efforts to gain influence in Central America in order to bypass the trade routes controlled by the US, the Nicaragua Canal (Map 4) as an alternative to the Panama Canal.

Map 3

Map 4

Although the apparent main reason for the project not having started construction is the collapse of the Chinese stock market in 2015-2016, which affected the Chinese company holding the project concession, it would be fair to say that other factors are also involved when considering that the implementation of the project would mean the trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific would no longer be under US monopoly.

So what will the US's next move be? Given America's apparent focus on immigration policy and the constant issue of drug cartels shipping drugs from Mexico to the US, and based on statements that the Panamanian government is acting contrary to the canal transfer agreement, it is clear that the target(s) after the Venezuela operation will be Mexico and Panama.

An assessment of the military aspects of a possible operation in Mexico reveals that, compared to Venezuela (Map 5), its geography is mountainous and rugged (Map 6).

Map 5

Map 6

the fact that Mexican cartels have an experienced cadre in armed combat with government forces, and the fact that within the US demographic structure, there are 40 million people of Mexican origin and 68 million people of Latin American origin in total, with this population accounting for around 40% in California, the richest state in the US, and the concentration of Latin Americans outside California in states such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida, are internal dynamic risks that the US must take into account in any action it takes against Mexico.

Facts about U.S. Latinos for Hispanic Heritage Month | Pew Research Center

Due to the risk factors outlined above, I believe the US has two objectives: firstly, to gain complete control of the Panama Canal, and secondly, to undertake an operation in the form of assistance at the request of the Mexican government.

Consequently, as Russia, America, the EU and China continue to make their respective moves amid the pains of transition from a bipolar to a multipolar balance of power, we will all see whether the winds of conflict will blow in the Asia-Pacific region, depending on the stance taken by actors such as Australia, Japan, India and even Pakistan, who are not yet fully involved in the game.