One of the worst fallouts of the Trump administration’s midnight operation in Caracas, Venezuela, is the dangerous precedent it has created. Whisking away President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and slapping drug-trafficking charges against him is reminiscent of the claims about weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, made against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which were later used to justify his elimination. No WMDs were ever found. In the case of Venezuela, Trump has made US intentions much clearer: all of Venezuela’s oil, gold, rare earths and mineral wealth belong to the United States to “make America great again”.
Besides setting a bad precedent, Trump’s actions and subsequent claims have exposed the soft underbelly of several countries, P5 powers, and regional groupings.
Under severe pressure from the Trump administration, the European Union (EU) took a tough anti-Russia stand in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. In a brazenly unethical move, Russian deposits in EU banks were frozen and plans are in place to use them to fund Ukraine’s weapons purchases. The total worth of Russian sovereign assets immobilised by the EU and other G7 countries was estimated in February 2024 at €260 billion, while the value of immobilised assets worldwide, including in non-G7 countries, could be close to €300 billion.
Even as US financial support for Ukraine declined under the Trump administration and Washington’s position vis-à-vis Russia began to shift, several international legal experts and prominent political figures defended the lawfulness of confiscating Russian central bank assets to sustain Ukraine, both for reconstruction and military expenditure, despite these assets being protected by state immunity under customary international law. Europe now finds itself in a strange predicament.
Also read: US invasion of Venezuela is end of international order. India must focus on cold calculations
Europe may finally have a reckoning
In a wishy-washy statement that almost toed the American line, the EU said Maduro lacked democratic legitimacy and called for a transition to democracy determined by the will of the Venezuelan people. However, Trump’s statement following the Venezuela episode — “We need Greenland from a national security situation…We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days” — has deepened Europe’s predicament. The threat to the sovereignty of some of Latin American countries and even Greenland now emanates not from China or Russia, but from Washington. Leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain and Denmark, who had earlier lauded Trump, are now urging the US to respect the UN Charter, including its core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On its part, Russia, which has bombed city after city in Ukraine, has maintained a stoic silence on the Venezuelan episode after initially condemning US action. Maduro was a close ally of Moscow, with long-standing ties, and had backed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The two countries shared energy business and military cooperation. Both had a common strategic interest in countering Washington’s geopolitical, military and economic influence.
Needless to say, several factors such as unmanageable distance, lack of ground support, absence of political backing, and above all the defence asymmetry with the US have held Russia back from active military involvement in Venezuela. It is instructive to recall Russia’s intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad and its face-saving retreat when the fall of the Assad government became imminent. The swiftness of American action in Venezuela left Moscow with little or no reaction time to repeat an Assad-style rescue on Maduro and his wife.
An American toolkit, an Indian approach
Even as the midnight drama unfolded in the closely guarded official residence of Maduro, a Chinese delegation was reportedly sleeping peacefully in a nearby hotel after a day-long business meeting with the president. Authoritarian Beijing had struck a sweet deal with the Maduro regime, all the while mocking America as a waning power.
Both Russia and China have condemned the blatant use of force against a sovereign state, describing it as a rejection of multilateralism and a threat to regional peace. While Europe is reminding America of the UN Charter, Russia and China are rediscovering the virtues of multilateralism, principles that India has long advocated. The world order can no longer be subjected to the dictates of a single hegemonic power, whether liberal or autocratic. Nor can any country, however militarily powerful, hold on to another country’s territory indefinitely. When a so-called liberator becomes responsible for providing electricity, water and shelter, feeding the population, and securing livelihoods, the liberator soon turns into an occupier — reviled by the very people who once applauded.
What happened in Venezuela was likely enabled by a highly compromised economic and political elite. The toolkit was simple: impose sanctions, ruin the domestic economy, compel the government to take drastic measures, and push the population beyond endurance. Once the government becomes unpopular, anti-government propaganda is amplified. There will always be people willing to lead such agitations for political or pecuniary gains. Then the CIA sleeper cells are activated, and suddenly large crowds appear on the streets, as seen in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Venezuela toolkit, however, does not always succeed. Washington should look back on its own history of invasions it carried out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or even Panama in 1989. The White House has a revolving door, and American presidents have a limited shelf life.
India’s approach underlines the fact that pragmatism is a better alternative to bravado. By adopting a cautious and diplomatic posture, India has emphasised dialogue and stability while highlighting its long-standing relations with Venezuela. As a torchbearer of multipolarity, India must also urgently draw attention to the total failure of the United Nations in preventing wars, unilateral sanctions, unlawful interventions and threats to sovereignty — rather than simply reacting after crises erupt.
Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)