We are as susceptible to click-bait as the next person so we immediately clicked on the headline, “Bystanders break up bald eagles’ ‘fight to the death’ in Seattle park.” It was a rare case of the headline accurately describing the content of the article. Joven Yount (no relation to Robin Yount) saw two eagles fighting. “The talons were piercing the other eagle near its eye and the back of its head drawing blood, Yount said. He worried that the bleeding eagle might die.” The eagles were involved in a territorial dispute, the bleeding eagle apparently encroaching on the other eagle’s territory. Yount’s actions caused the eagle on top to fly to a tree. When we related this to the International Need to Know spouse, she said, “Should we really be interfering in eagle politics?” Which, of course, leads us to Venezuela.
In Sunday’s Trump Tracker of law-breaking and corruption, we provided some initial impressions of the Trump administration’s military action in Venezuela. Rather than our usual three short stories of note, we are breaking from convention to expand on those impressions here. Why depart from our regularly scheduled programming? Because the Trump administration’s actions highlight and make clear a number of themes we’ve been writing about for over a year, and expose the danger we are all in. So, this week allow us a departure.
No Tears for Maduro
It should go without saying that Maduro was a dictator who ran his country with an iron fist and its economy into the ground. Under Maduro’s rule, the Venezuelan state security apparatus killed, detained, disappeared and tortured political opponents and others. Maduro stole the recent election, which seems like, given Trump’s record, something he would respect. At any rate, nobody sheds a tear for Maduro. But, as we will show, it’s not at all clear as of this writing that the Venezuelan state security apparatus will be replaced.
Is it the oil?
Breaking the law like many U.S. administrations but of a different magnitude
The Trump administration’s military action in Venezuela violates both U.S. and international law. It is true that most modern presidents have similarly broken the law. But the Venezuela action is of another magnitude. Even under the broadest modern claims of presidential power, a cross-border armed operation to capture a sitting head of state—absent an attack on the U.S. or an act of Congress—pushes well past what Congress has traditionally tolerated as “short, limited” uses of force. Calling it “law enforcement” doesn’t change what it is if the U.S. military is used to conduct a forcible seizure inside another sovereign state. In addition, the U.S. didn’t just remove a head of state, Trump said the U.S. will be running Venezuela. We know nobody cares, but the action also violates the U.N. Charter which prohibits use of force against another country unless in self-defense. U.S. citizens voluntarily buying drugs from another country does not constitute an invasion of America and forcibly removing a leader of a country where a few of these drugs might be originating is not self-defense. Again, Trump is not the first president to ignore U.S. and international law in taking military action but the reasons he took military action and the magnitude of his legal violations are different. Take H.W. Bush’s actions in Panama to arrest Noriega as a contrasting example. In that case, Panama had declared a state of war against America and the U.S. Congress had authorized the removal of Noriega. Of course, rule of law is an outdated concept in the Trump/China/Russia ushered in era. To Trump, violating international law is part of the point. Before diving into what that means for all of us, first let’s ask what will happen in Venezuela.
Should it be about the oil?
Now What?
Who is in charge of Venezuela? Trump claimed the U.S. would be running it. What that means, nobody seems to know, including those in the Trump administration allegedly in charge of Venezuela. Ostensibly, Venezuela’s vice president Delcy Rodríguez is now the interim president. But the Trump administration expects her to take certain actions. Will she? Can she? In understanding why Trump authorized the military action in Venezuela we need to remember there is not one policy with Venezuela, there are many. What Rubio and Miller want are different. Hegseth just wants to look cool and powerful. But what about Trump? Trump is about money, oil and power. He does not care about democracy. Rubio probably does, or at least in the past he did. Stephen Miller cares about removing as many non-white immigrants as he possibly can, including Venezuelans. How this washes out in what will likely be the very dirty laundry of Venezuelan policy is impossible to predict.
But even when analyzing an illegal military action with contradictory goals and one in which the U.S. will be “running” the country, we should remember that not all U.S. incursions in Latin America end badly. After the U.S. removed Noriega, Panama stabilized politically and developed economically. In 1989, Panama’s GDP per capita was $6715. It’s risen nearly four-fold since. Panama also transitioned to a democracy fairly smoothly. Guillermo Endara, the opposition leader to Noriega, who had won the previous election that Noriega annulled, became Panama’s president as the U.S. invasion began. Panama held elections in 1994 when power transferred peacefully to Ernest Perez Balladares.
In regards to Venezuela, it’s likely Rubio cares about democracy, among other issues (apparently including Cuba).Trump, however, does not. He cares, as he has said repeatedly , about oil. In fact, he announced yesterday that the U.S, will control 30 – 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil and is placing the revenue derived from the sale of that oil outside the U.S. Treasury (unconstitutional btw). Trump asserts any revenue Venezuela receives from the sale of the oil will be used to buy American products. So if those running the policy don’t care about Venezuela becoming a prosperous democracy, how likely is it to become one? George W Bush didn’t get what he intended with the 2003 invasion of Iraq—he got chaos and worse. Maybe Trump won’t get what he intends in Venezuela, and we’ll have a reverse Iraq. Good luck.
The World Is in Danger
But you already knew that. Nearly a year ago, in our article The Third Man: A New Malevolent Actor, we called the Trump administration a, “pseudo 19th century imperial wannabe. One that rather than countering authoritarianism is a weak mimicker of it.” We also wrote, “We are back to, as we’ve written in other essays, a 19th Century world, where the most powerful countries battle each other for influence, territory and wealth. A zero-sum game that in the end nobody wins, including Americans, but especially peoples all over the world with the dumb luck to be born in smaller nations.”
Now again, some in the Trump administration, including likely Rubio, wanted to remove Maduro and “run” Venezuela partly because of worries about authoritarian countries such as China, which viewed Venezuela as a helpful entry point into Latin America. Indeed, China is upset because we captured Maduro while a Chinese delegation was in Venezuela, only a few hours after they had met with Maduro. Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai said on Tuesday: “The United States took such action at a time when China’s delegation was visiting Venezuela. For China, it is very embarrassing.”
Is it the oil for China?
So there are members of the administration who deeply care about countering China. We don’t think there is any evidence that Trump himself does. He cares about the trade deficit with China, but not about China’s authoritarian ambitions. And does removing Maduro, while a Chinese delegation is in Venezuela, actually do anything to counter China’s ambitions? Those ambitions seem startingly similar to Trump’s ambitions. Note the social media posts, from the Trump administration this week about Western Hemisphere dominance, including this one. The powerful countries are dividing up the world. Make the 19th century great again.
Certainly Stephen Miller made clear what kind of a power the Trump administration believes America should be during an interview on CNN regarding Greenland, “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” He applies that logic to Greenland when in the same interview he says, “Greenland should be part of the US. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The US is the power of NATO…Nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over Greenland.”
The Trump administration finished off the rules-based international order that had been under assault for years by China, Russia and others. Trump is intent on controlling the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland. The Trump administration seems focused on spheres of influence. Trump’s is a 19th century view where the great powers rule, and he most of all. Rule of law is replaced by rule of power. Such a world makes life easier for China. In some ways, China is the most powerful country on earth (though Venezuela’s Chinese anti-air equipment failed). There are, as we wrote last February, now three large malevolent actors in the world. That is not a recipe for peace and prosperity for the world.
Oh, and by the way, that eagle who got the worst of the fight? It had to be “humanely euthanized” due to “the extent of its injuries.”
International Need to Know will return to its regular format next week. In the meantime, in the spirit of stuff you need to know internationally, keep an eye on Iran.
PS This is not our beat but a) Renee Nicole Good was murdered by an ICE officer; b) this is not surprising and such outcomes were warned about by a federal judge; back in November and c) we should not accept a president who brazenly lies all the time everyday about everything, including by saying Ms. Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” She did not run over the officer. Trump lied and his propensity for lying is germane to our understanding of what is and will happen in Venezuela.
