Wren Comeau
Staff Writer
On Jan. 3, the world stage took into consideration a new incident orchestrated by the Trump administration, a U.S. military operation to capture and remove the President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. The operation, which included involvement from over 150 aircraft and advanced cyber offense to disarm the Venezuelan compound in Carcaras that Maduro and his wife were staying at. Ground forces then moved in once security was disabled, and brought Maduro and his wife back to New York to face drug trafficking charges.
This event has sparked debate within the American public and international governments alike. With some leaders supporting Trump’s actions, for instance, the Argentine President Javier Milei who states, “[this incident] supports democracy, the defense of life, freedom and property,” he said.
Other statements from conservative leaders like President-Elect Jose Antonio Kast of Chile assert that the situation is, “Great news for the region.” With President Daniel Nobosa of Ecuador remarking on followers of Maduro’s ideology stating, “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”
On the other side, left-wing presidents express their concerns on the implications that these actions have for U.S. foreign policy in the future. With leaders such as Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stating that Maduro’s capture sets, “An extremely dangerous precedent.” Lula da Silva said, referring to Trump’s decision to not seek congressional approval for his actions before carrying out the raid.
Similarly, Chile’s Gabriel Boric says that it, “Violated an essential pillar of international law,” and Columbia’s Gustavo Petro called it, “Aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”
Dr. Kelly McHugh, a professor at FSC with a specialization in political science and a chairmember of the Department of History and Political Science, sheds some light into these inquiries.
“I think that the reason it happened now is that you have a number of people inside the Trump administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who for various reasons have long wanted to get rid of Maduro. So far, the US decided that was not worth the potential risk and cost. We don’t know exactly at this point what the internal deliberations were, but it was decided by the president that this was an opportune time to do it,” McHugh said.
Additionally, McHugh asserts that the discussion of this situation being referred to as a “regime change” isn’t an accurate explanation.
“It was the removal of the president, which is the decapitation of a regime. But the rest of the government is still there. The vice president has taken over. It appears that the Trump administration is working with her. The leaders of the military and intelligence services are still there,” McHugh said.
An essential part of this incident is the motivators behind the U.S.’s involvement in Venezuela. According to Trump’s press conference, his focus was on the economic prosperity that Venezuela’s oil reserves would bring to American oil companies.
“I don’t think they’ve thought through that that’s a way down the line profit opportunity,” McHugh said. “It’s not something that’s not like next year, there’s going to be billions of dollars of oil revenue flowing in.”
Since Maduro had long since nationalized the oil industry, most of their equipment is extremely outdated, which makes bringing the industry back online a challenge that “could take a decade,” McHugh said.
Overall, the developing situation in Venezuela has vastly changed the game when it comes to foreign relations between the U.S. and other countries, with McHugh giving a warning.
“I think the bigger consequence is going to be the precedent it sets,” McHugh said. “Because what the U.S. does in the world influences what a lot of other countries are going to take as acceptable behavior.”
