Contemplating U.S. Military Intervention in Venezuela
By Lukas Furlan, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University
It was alarming to watch, over the past few months, as Venezuela fell deeper into political and socioeconomic instability as the government’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido, swore himself in as the interim prime minister. Venezuela’s now disputed head of state, Nicolas Maduro, criticized this move as an imperialist, U.S. backed regime-change ploy and publicly declared his intentions to defend his office from both domestic and international threats. In response, the Trump Administration declared that the use of military intervention in order to oust Maduro was being considered. Although Guaido may deserve to be the prime minister of Venezuela, a U.S. invasion would be foolish, illegal, and most likely disastrous for both countries.
The move by Guaido to assume interim presidential status was an attempt to put an end to the reign of Nicolas Maduro, who has credibly been accused of usurping Venezuela’s most recent election. In addition, Maduro’s undemocratic governance and economic mismanagement have contributed to an exacerbation of the worst economic crisis in the country’s history. The U.S., UK, and most western states support Guaido, officially recognizing him as the legitimate prime minister of Venezuela. China, Russia, Iran, and a handful of other states — a group that a former Venezuelan minister, Moises Naim, has termed the ‘autocrats’ alliance’ — have backed Maduro.
In January, U.S. national security advisor John Bolton appeared at a news briefing with a notepad containing the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a state which borders Venezuela and whose president has joined the U.S. in pushing for Maduro’s ouster. When U.S. officials were asked whether the notepad referred to preparations for a military intervention in Venezuela, Bolton reiterated that “all options were on the table.” Both legally and practically, however, a military intervention by the U.S. is unjustified and would likely result in disaster.
To begin with, an invasion by the U.S. in these circumstances would be considered illegal under international law. Venezuela has the right to territorial integrity, a principle embedded in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) which affirms the right of sovereign nations to act freely within their own borders. One way that a foreign state may legally violate the territory of another — without provocation — is through the UN-sanctioned “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. However, the use of military intervention under R2P is contingent on the authorization by members of the UN Security Council, which would be unlikely in this case as China and Russia would almost certainly veto the resolution.
Regardless of whether China or Russia were in the picture, Maduro’s conduct, though deplorable, does not fulfill the strict standards to which military intervention under R2P, “just war principles,” or similar concepts such as “humanitarian intervention” would be justified. These doctrines are intended to condone military intervention as a last resort, for unique circumstances involving genocide, ethnic cleansing or mass slaughter. Although Maduro’s government has contributed to widespread suffering, it has not risen to a level which would justify foreign military intervention.
Even if Maduro’s government deserves to be ousted, morally if not legally, it is far from unique among the more unsavoury regimes of the world. There are many brutal dictators who have committed atrocities worse in scale and substance than that of Maduro. The leader of Chechnya, for example has bragged about organizing anti-gay purges. North Korea is known to run a vast system of deadly labour camps. The Myanmar military has engaged in ethnic cleansing of its Muslim Rohingya, and is currently embroiled in armed conflict with minority ethnic and religious groups. The governments of Bahrain, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have committed humanitarian abuses on the same scale as those previously mentioned. Regardless, few would agree that the U.S. should have invaded these countries, and for good reason.
War is not just another policy tool for the U.S. to use in order to enforce their will upon unstable nations. Similar to cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan, a military intervention in Venezuela would likely result in large scale death and destruction on both sides. Maduro still has control of the state broadcaster, a compliant judiciary, the national military, and a network of ruthless paramilitary forces. To make matters more complicated, Venezuela’s mountainous, jungle-ridden landscape and high levels of instability rule out the possibility of a quick, surgical military operation as was conducted in Grenada and Panama; two small, Latin American countries invaded by the U.S towards the end of the Cold War.
Rather, Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq with a military of 115,000 troops, in addition to tanks and fighter jets. It is a country of 30 million people, 20% of whom still support Maduro’s government and, like Iraq, U.S. troops are unlikely to be welcomed as “liberators.” A recently conducted poll reported that a majority of Venezuelans oppose a foreign invasion in support of regime change, including a plurality of those in Venezuela’s opposition. Maduro’s supporters (as well as much of his opposition) are motivated by a historically entrenched ideology of anti-imperialist socialism, and any invasion would play into, as well as partially validate, the imperialist conspiracies that Maduro has consistently proclaimed throughout his tenure.
Even if the U.S. could defeat Maduro’s forces with relative ease, they would have to be prepared to remain until stability was restored. As the old saying goes, “if you break it, you buy it.” This, again, would be a challenge on the same scale as Iraq. Venezuela’s infrastructure is decimated, her territory is used as a main transit point for drug traffickers, and approximately one hundred thousand Venezuelans are armed and ready to go rogue if the state collapses. Rebuilding the nation would be a long, expensive, and arduous process — and any failure would be blamed on the U.S. It is time for Washington to learn from its history of interventionism and seriously reconsider the possibility of using of military action in pursuit of regime change.
