Key Takeaways:
- The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela have sent shockwaves around the world, with many analysts drawing comparisons to past events, but these comparisons are problematic and do not reflect the current situation.
- The US has not opted for regime change in Venezuela, instead seeking to exert control over the country through economic and diplomatic means.
- The Trump administration’s goal is to dominate the Western Hemisphere, with a focus on controlling key assets, supply chains, and strategic locations.
- The US has used non-traditional means to pursue this strategy, including economic coercion, diplomatic pressure, and threats of military intervention.
- The situation in Venezuela has implications for other countries in the region, including Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico, as well as for US allies in Europe, particularly Denmark, which controls Greenland.
Introduction to the Crisis
The recent actions of the Trump administration in Venezuela have caused a global shockwave, with many analysts scrambling to find historical comparisons to understand the situation. However, these comparisons are problematic and do not reflect the current situation. The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been compared to the capture of Panamanian strongman General Manuel Noriega in 1989, but Noriega was not recognized as the head of state in an institutional sense, and the US has not opted for regime change in Venezuela. Instead, the Trump administration has struck a deal with the Venezuelan military on what happens next, and Trump has avoided, at least for now, the specter of a major "boots on the ground" intervention in Venezuela.
A New Low in International Relations
The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela have set a new low in international relations, with many leaders around the world expressing alarm and concern. The move has ripped up the final vestiges of expectations that nation-states will act in a way that recognizes international legal and diplomatic norms. The US has maximized its announcement effect, and minimized the physical intervention, seeking to run not just Venezuela but the broader Western Hemisphere by threat of further action. This approach is based on a crude, basic "whatever it takes" punishment and reward system dictated by the self-interest of the US, with business and economic interests taking precedence over legalities, niceties, or alliances.
The End Goal: Controlling the Western Hemisphere
The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela are part of a broader strategy to control the Western Hemisphere, with a focus on controlling key assets, supply chains, and strategic locations. The US national security strategy, released last month, emphasizes the need for the US to be pre-eminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of its security and prosperity. The strategy seeks to ensure that the hemisphere remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets and supports critical supply chains. The Trump administration has already used non-traditional means to pursue this strategy, including economic coercion, diplomatic pressure, and threats of military intervention.
Case Studies: Argentina and Brazil
The US has used its economic leverage to prop up the ideologically aligned government of Argentinian President Javier Milei, while punishing the left-wing government of Brazilian President Lula da Silva with tariffs and economic sanctions. The US has also threatened to withdraw aid from Argentina if Milei is defeated at the ballot box. These actions demonstrate the Trump administration’s willingness to use economic coercion to achieve its goals, but also highlight the shortcomings of this approach. For example, the US policy towards Brazil is pushing the country closer to China, rather than achieving the desired outcome of reducing its economic ties with Beijing.
The Specter of Military Intervention
The Trump administration’s comments on Greenland have raised concerns about the possibility of military intervention in the region. The US has a long history of wanting to control Greenland, dating back to 1867, and Trump has spoken on occasion of buying the island. The sparsely populated country holds considerable natural resource reserves and is growing in strategic importance as interest in the Arctic for both shipping and natural resources grows. The specter of the US seizing Greenland by force seems both incomprehensible but very real in the wake of events in Venezuela. The US deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, has stated that Greenland should be part of the US, and that Denmark’s control over the island is not legitimate.
Implications for the World Order
The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela and beyond have significant implications for the world order. The US is seeking to exert its dominance over the Western Hemisphere, using a range of non-traditional means to achieve its goals. This approach is based on a willingness to disregard international legal and diplomatic norms, and to use economic coercion and military threats to achieve its objectives. The situation has implications for other countries in the region, including Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico, as well as for US allies in Europe, particularly Denmark, which controls Greenland. The world as we know it has been turned on its head, and it remains to be seen how the international community will respond to the Trump administration’s aggressive and unpredictable approach to international relations.