The Venezuela Action
Since it has been recommended the discussion on the Venezueyla action should be discussed in Purgatory, I begin this thread with the statement from the senior Senator from Washington State, Patty Murrey. I think she expresses the sentiments of most Americans I know:
The American people didn’t ask to start a war with Venezuela. They didn’t ask for an indefinite and costly occupation of another country and they didn’t ask for ‘boots on the ground,’ their sons and daughters put in harm’s way. All they asked for were lower prices at the grocery store.
Only Congress can authorize war and I absolutely will not support a large-scale military conflict in Venezuela or a dangerous and expensive occupation. What the President has done is unconstitutional, reckless, and will have far-reaching effects well beyond last night’s strikes.
The President has provided no legitimate justification for these unauthorized strikes nor any kind of long-term strategy for how he will deal with the fallout of this slapdash regime change—and he must now explain his unhinged statements that we will ‘run’ Venezuela. The American people can see for themselves how dishonest and cynical this entire venture is—we’re supposed to believe drug trafficking warrants the use of military force to topple a foreign government in one instance and then merits a full pardon for the former President of Honduras who was lawfully convicted of the same crime? And we should all be eyes wide open about the potential for self-enrichment and corruption by the Trump administration when it comes to profiting off Venezuela’s oil. This is not about law and order, because if it were, Trump wouldn't have withheld these plans from Congress, and it is not about actually helping Americans suffering from drug addiction.
Maduro is a corrupt and oppressive dictator—that much has always been clear. But what stops China or Russia from making similar claims about foreign leaders they don’t like and then using military force to overthrow them? This kind of careless use of military force threatens serious global instability—and none of that is good for Americans here at home.
“There needs to be serious oversight and accountability here. Trump administration officials must come before Congress and publicly explain their rationale and—importantly—just what exactly they think happens next here. Republican leaders should not just shrug their shoulders and let the President bomb whoever he wants on hardly more than a whim—they must join Democrats in pressing for serious accountability and insisting that the use of military force be authorized by Congress.
If this escalates into a prolonged conflict of any sort, you can bet it won’t be Trump’s family putting their lives on the line—the American people do not want to be dragged into another costly foreign war with no real justification. It is outrageous for a President who is tanking our economy here at home to suggest that the American taxpayer spend a fortune to ‘run’ another country while doing nothing to make life better in America. I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset—and the parallels here are glaring. I will similarly oppose any war in Venezuela. I refuse to put the lives of servicemembers at further risk, and I refuse to saddle our children with yet another costly war for no good reason.
Comments
The US is a rogue state. Is there anything other countries can do to punish us for this that they can do without badly hurting themselves?
Longer term I think other nations will start to pivot their trading relationships and alliances away from the US.
Our PM was quick to say that we had no involvement in Trump's actions - I haven't yet caught up with the news on this side of the Pond, to see what else might have transpired.
Alas! the US does now appear to be a rogue state. Hopefully, that will change when Trump is no more, but the damage he and his lackeys are doing will take a very long time to repair.
Individual other states or groupings that attempt punitive action would, I guess, at best be shrugged off, at worst become targets. And there is some evidence that it is mainly America's traditional allies who are outraged - a number of other countries don't mind Trump so much, maybe even prefer him...
Although doing so domestically would be harder, I suspect.
I'm not sure it's a case of 'punishing' the US for Trump's actions. The only one who should be punished is Trump himself.
Let's hope that happens through the ballot box.
But maybe I’m wrong?
I emphasise that this is the view as I see it from this side of the Pond, and I appreciate that the situation is much more complex. Still, it's all very scary, and there are already rumblings from Trump - but no overt threats - about Cuba...
Their comments don't suggest so.
China was a big supporter of Maduro.
Putin will use it as an example of Western hypocrisy. 'They criticise me for attempting regime change ...'
I don't think many will mourn the passing of the Venezuelan regime and I hope they get a better one.
But we all know this is all about the oil. Trump wants to cross his supporters' palms with silver. He is talking about 'reimbursing' those who've fled Venezuela for the US.
I suspect the oil revenue will be distributed highly selectively. Among his pals.
This is a key salient point. I've been reading Isaac Chotiner in the latest New Yorker (behind a paywall so not linking) who talks about the 'brazen illegality' of the US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Maduro and the impunity with which the US was able to act from a position of extensive global military, economic and political hegemony. At this point, international diplomatic pressure, threats of non-alignment and appeals to the UN Charter mean very little. The consequences of intensifying polarisation and isolation are not negligible but mean very little in the short term.
My own feeling is that the most effective form of protest would only come from within the US itself and not the international community.
Remember we are talking about a highly corrupt leader, a known criminal who used his high office to make billions for himself, and has manipulated elections to stay in power, has used the military against his own citizens, has protected his corrupt friends, and has persecuted his personal enemies.
And the President of Venezuela has done some pretty bad things too.
Trump has claimed he is restoring the rights of American oil companies to Venezuela's oil reserves. Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976. At the time most of the foreign investment was from America. He is claiming American companies have the right to repossess those fields. In other words, it is about the oil.
Amen.
There are already protests in many parts of the country. But look for bigger protests on Jan 20, which will be the one year anniversary of Trump's inauguration. There will be a Women's March in Washington that day as well as other cities throughout the nation. Then too, Martin Luther King's day will be on January 25. Previously. this had been a national holiday, but Trump is ignoring it. Look for protests developing on that day too. Our congregation will be hosting a community day of remembrance with people from the Bahai, Christian, and Islamic Center participating. I also think the Jewish community is also invited. I am sure we will be discussing how King opposed the war in Vietnam and how it relates to what is happening in Venezuela.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
The fact that Congress has become Trump's lapdog (basically because most of the Republicans are either cheering him on, or are scared of having him and his rich mates fund a primary campaign against them) makes the US exactly a rogue state.
I am sorry to say that I see no difference between the US action yesterday and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I also see no justification for seizing a foreign head of state, however objectionable, and Maduro certainly is that, abducting him to the USA and saying one is going to put him on trial for things which if he has done them, he did them somewhere else and under Venezuelan law.
As to the 'rogue state' accusation, ever since the establishment in the USA demonstrated its impotence in taking four years to fail to prosecute Mr Trump for his actions on 6th January 2021, the burden of proof is on the collective citizenry of the USA to demonstrate that there is any difference between a rogue president and a rogue state.
I have news for you about the kinds of leaders Trump likes in the Southern hemisphere.
Time was when saying this would be met with accusations that one was a conspiratorially minded leftie, I suppose this is progress.
The abduction of Maduro looks illegal under international law. Nobody is going to shed tears over his removal from office. But it looks as though the other powerbrokers in Venezuela have been left in play.
My guess, therefore, is that some kind of a deal has been struck with those around Madura prepared to support US aims and claims over Venezuelan oil. Trump’s criticism of Maria Machado (Venezuelan Nobel Peace Prize winner) makes it pretty clear that he’s more interested in US oil interests in Venezuela than the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.
I may have missed it but I don’t think the word democracy was even mentioned during the Trump press conference.
I’m pretty sure Madura’s lawyers in New York will claim that any case against him should be thrown out because of his illegal forcible abduction from another country. It will be interesting to see how the New York court responds to that. But Madura will be held in prison until all judicial processes have been exhausted (up to and including the SCOTUS).
Meanwhile, regime change is a current and probable future reality. I really don’t see Congress taking back its powers.
Also, there probably ought to be a mandatory investigation into anyone buying shares in American oil companies in the last 2 weeks.
Even from the opposition's own figures Maduro retained some popular support up to the last election, and of course there's a racial/economic element to Venezuelan politics which mean that 'most people' wouldn't necessarily go for the right wing alternative instead.
Possibly because he doesn't want anyone but himself 'running' Venezuela until he knows how tractable they are.
Venezuela is very well armed and trained and I wonder why exactly it was that not a single anti-aircraft or anti-missile shot was fired. It seems to me that Maduro was handed over to the Americans by his own military.
My prediction for the next turn of events:
Trump has saved face by kidnapping Maduro but will not launch the ground invasion necessary to unseat the rest of the Venezuelan government because he has been told by both Russia and China that they will continue to back the Venezuelan army. He will declare victory and withdraw the naval blockade.
Putin and Xi will take this action as a legitimizing precedent to kidnap opposition leaders on Taiwan and in Ukraine in order to render them to tribunals in Russia and on the mainland of China.
Everyone gets what they want. Venezuela gets to keep its country, resources and territory and avoids a costly conflict. Trump gets to humiliate Maduro. Putin and Xi get an extra tool in their tool belts for dealing with their own undesirables.
Let's see what happens next.
AFF
Yes, I was watching Starmer to see how he would react, and he said the UK hadn't taken part! I don't think he dare criticize Trump, in case he is taken off the favoured list. Of course, the right wing parties will approve.
Au contraire. I know exactly what kind of leaders Trump likes in the Southern Hemisphere. The sort sort as Reagan and previous US Presidents favoured.
This isn't the first time the US has interfered in Central or South America.
I should have made myself clearer. don't for a moment believe that anyone Trump 'appoints' there would be any better than Maduro.
My hope would be that the Venezuelan people eventually get a better President once Trump butt's out. I don't think he's in this for the long haul. He'll be happy with some kind of compliant interim government and assurance that the petro-dollars go where he wants them to.
I'm certainly not on the 'hard left' as it were but 'it's all about the oil' is something I've been saying about US geopolitics since my teenage years in the 1970s.
So no, I certainly wouldn't dismiss your concerns as the ravings of a conspiritorally minded leftie.
Whatever gave you that idea?
That was my thought, too. In all fairness, Starmer has shown some dexterity in dealing with Trump, so maybe he wants to continue to be in favour, as you say.
The Greens in England and Wales, and I expect in Scotland, too, are unequivocally against Trump's action:
https://www.greenparty.ie/news/statement-illegal-us-attack-venezuela
LibDems aren't too keen, either:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/why-is-trump-getting-away-with-venezuela-strikes-78913.html
I would assert that in general terms Bolsonaro was 'worse' than Maduro - particularly for normal people living under either government.
I was just talking about the general commentary, which in this case is stymied by Trump's repeated and vociferous claims about the oil.
He needs to realise that there are no pockets in a shroud.
PS your link was a statement from the Green Party of Ireland.
Oops - should have checked first! The clue is in the heading, and the website address (I must have had a Senior Moment). I blame Trump. Or Wikipedia.
However, the Greens' stance seems clear, across the board, so to speak.
OK, but he must know that Trump has smashed international law. What's to stop any government from doing likewise? I get why he is keeping stumm.
In fact in general I think Trump would like to see a Europe that looked politically a lot more like Latin America.
Yes, he's hedging his bets while he waits to see what the lawyers say...for all his shortcomings, real, or imagined by the far-right, he is (I think) a pragmatic leader who plays a long game.
Less said, soonest mended is not an unreasonable attitude - and it's early days yet. If Trump tries to bash up Mexico and/or Cuba, a more severe reaction might ensue.
However, as others have said, the solution to the potentially catastrophic effect Trump will have on the world lies with the people of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama
That point has indeed been made, but I suspect that there is rather more to this venture.
Oil.
That would be Sir Keir Starmer who specialised in human rights and international law ? What exactly is the long game here?
How's that going ? What exactly do you think the Russians are about to do that the current set of policies are aimed at stopping?
This isn't primarily a comms problem.
Maybe, though the devil may well be in the details, as it were.
As regards Russian aggression, I read recently that 'Santa's Town' in Finland (Rovaniemi), which exists on peddling the childish Santa Claus nonsense to well-heeled tourists, is also busily fortifying its nearby border with Russia, as is being done in many parts of Finland. Quite a poignant contrast, I think, and AIUI other European countries in the area (Poland, and the Baltic states) are also strengthening their defences.
They must all have (or believe they have) sufficient reason to spend money on this work...
All that said, I see no reason to believe that Trump will come to Europe's aid if push comes to shove, but others in the US may well want to help.
If 'general commentary' includes that notoriously Marxist and Trotskyite broadcasting operation the BBC, then almost everyone is saying 'it's about the oil.'
I don't see anyone out there saying it isn't.
The biggest difference is that the Panama invasion was a well planned operation lasting several weeks to both arrest Noriega and replace his government. US "boots on the ground" overwhelming Panamanian forces and having Guillermo Endara (who had won the 1989 election, with the result annulled by Noriega) sworn in as President within a couple of days. That's very different from a smash and grab raid to kidnap two people for trial, with no apparent thought about how to ensure a rapid transition to a legitimate President much less arranging the operation to do that. A comparable campaign in Venezuela would have had 1000s of US troops rapidly suppress the Venezuelan military, detaining the majority of the Venezuelan government (not just Maduro) and rapidly installing a new President (presumably Edmundo González who won the 2024 election) and government, with operations continuing to support that new government over a few weeks or longer, so as not to leave a power vacuum which the drug cartels would almost certainly exploit.
Another difference is that on December 15th 1989 the Panamanian General Assembly declared that a state of war existing between Panama and the USA. That put the invasion of the 20th December in a different legal category to the operations in Venezuela over the weekend. There are still plenty of questions to be answered about the legality of the Panama invasion, but that declaration of a state of war a few days before provided a legal fig-leaf that is absent in the kidnapping of Maduro.
This time around they could hardly deny it, could they? I meant in general.
The only differences as far as I can see are a question of degree.
Heck, even Maggie Thatcher scolded Reagan over the invasion of Grenada. Ok, so it was a friendly 'hand-bagging' but I don't buy this thing that there's a general view that the USA's, or anyone else's foreign policy is squeaky-clean.
People have been pretty sceptical of US foreign policy for as long as I can remember, whether they are left, right or centre in their politics. Even those on the right who might not object that strongly still tend to roll their eyes.
Whether this amounts to anything more than a degree of popular anti-Americanism I don't know. But I can't remember encountering much enthusiasm for US military action in any context. Even during the First Gulf War much of the public mood was taken up with British losses to US 'friendly fire'.
I'm not saying that such 'anti-American' sentiment is necessarily justified nor legitimate nor am I trying to stand another SoF 'Pond War.' I blame Trump not the US per se.
But whether it was US support for the Contras in Nicaragua or Pinochet in Chile, apart from some right-wing Conservatives, the general tone and feeling here towards US intervention anywhere is one of scepticism I would submit.
Whether that's sour grapes following the loss of Empire or a weary 'here they go again, what are they going to mess up this time?' I don't know. But in my experience the general tone and feeling is the opposite to what you claim.
Not really the unequivocal condemnation that it's touted as (having seen edited versions floating over during the last few days):
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105211
I can't really offer any sensible reasoning but it seems entirely possible to me that some of these images are AI.
Leaving aside the conspiracy theories, it seems beyond doubt that Trump has succeeded in mixing truth and lies (and neutering journalism) to the extent that nobody now really knows what is true.
No, and folk memory is a selective thing, of course.
Harold Wilson was pretty robust when standing up to Lyndon Johnson's pressure for the UK to send troops to Vietnam.
Thatcher's response to the invasion of Grenada wasn't as robust as folk memory would have it but even mild disapproval registers in the collective consciousness when it comes to the all too rare instances of a UK PM standing up, however moderately, to a POTUS.
And people said Brexit was all about 'sovereignty' ...
Coming back to Venezuela, I see no reason to believe that the footage of Maduro is 'fake'. Like @A Feminine Force though, I find it strange that nobody apparently fired a shot - even a token one - against the US forces but perhaps the US ballistics were out range and the special forces had the advantage of surprise (after a month's build up?) or some collusion on the ground.
Whatever the case, I do see this as more sinister and potentially far-reaching than Panama and Grenada.