Following deadly military strikes that killed a hundred people in Venezuelan territory, the United States abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and extradited them to the United States. Global condemnation followed, decrying the blatant violation of international law. US President Trump and other US officials, at whose behest the invasion took place, provided a range of justifications, from punishing drug-trafficking, enforcing democracy, the most highlighted reason – managing the country’s oil reserves, to even blatantly admitting to doing so for the sake of a much-needed foreign policy “win” for the U.S.
These proposed reasons highlight nothing but the continuation of the US imperial tradition. From 2003 onwards, US invasions in nations it deems as antagonists are propelled by a fusion of both the capitalist logic of power (establishing flows of capital accumulation) and the “territorialist” logic of power (gaining control over territory). Beyond the acquisition of natural resources, one of the larger goals is to restructure the entire economic, political, and social systems of the nation under attack. The purpose is to establish a neoliberal order that facilitates the concentration of wealth for the global elites, while dispossessing public and private entities.
With Venezuela, more alarming this time around is how the genocide in Palestine by Israel, with the support of the US, has now set a dangerous precedent. It has normalised to a whole other level, the violation of international law and national sovereignty, and more importantly, made the carnage of civilians, something deemed as inevitable, collateral damage in pursuit of “national interest/national security”.
The failure of the United Nations and the global order to put an end to the genocide has proven that the regime of international law is a farce, deliberately formatted to serve imperial interests and harm those whose liberatory movements resist the former.
Another point of contention is whenever the US invades a country whose government is perceived to serve as part of a global axis of resistance against the US (Iran, Syria, Russia, etc.), many tend to end up falling for the trap of the “good authoritarian versus bad authoritarian”. People end up taking either of two mainstream positions: (A) The US invasion is justified/ought to be celebrated because of corrupt rulers/authoritarian government. (B) The US invasion is rightfully opposed and condemned, while simultaneously uncritically lauding and supporting the leader/government in question, due to their resistance against US imperialism, ignoring said leaders’/government’s often undemocratic actions/violence against their own citizens. What both approaches miss is that the nation-state apparatus, regardless of geography or ideology, is designed to serve its own interests.
The common people, the mass citizenry, will always be expendable for the same. There is hardly any nation-state, especially in the 21st century, that does not subsist on violence, extraction, coercion, and authoritarianism. These are the only methods with which the modern nation-state can maintain its power over its own people, as well as for fighting wars beyond its borders.
It’s important to remember that two truths can exist simultaneously. The US invasion and violation of another country’s sovereignty are immoral and should be opposed and condemned. Corrupt leadership and/or crimes can never be a justification for imperial violence. At the same time, just because a nation is rightfully standing up to/playing a role in resisting US imperial violence in the world, it does not absolve it of its crimes against its own citizens (be it Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc.).
While it is true that we should be sceptical of whom the US deems as “corrupt” or a “terrorist” given its Islamophobic, Orientalist track record, it’s important to recognise that an individual or a state is fully capable of being on the right side of history in one regard (foreign policy), while being totally wrong in another (local/domestic policies).
As far as Venezuela is concerned, the government indeed was part of a concerted effort (cooperated with Iran) to resist US imperialism at the global level. However, the way before sanctions were imposed, Venezuela was suffering from crises that are common for most nations; i.e. elite capture of institutions, policy failures, electoral fraud, repression of dissent, economic corruption, crony capitalism, among others. All of which had already weakened the economy and political system, the imposition of US sanctions accelerated the downfall. The recent adventure is, as the history of US invasions has proven time and again, unlikely to reverse it or prove any sustainable good for the people there.
Such a statist framing of these geopolitical events keeps common people like us trapped in the problematic nation-state apparatus. Doing so hampers the possibilities of establishing networks of global solidarity and instead continues to reduce us as pawns on the chessboard of the global great game. With the current media zeitgeist regarding present geopolitics, it is critical that we do not lose sight of the larger picture. As John J. Mearsheimer’sThe Tragedy of Great Power Politics, said “The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way.”