US Invasion of Venezuela
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions)
The recent US invasion of Venezuela has sent shockwaves across the globe, sparking intense debates and diplomatic maneuvering. As tensions escalate, India finds itself walking a tightrope, balancing its strategic interests with its commitment to sovereignty of independent countries and non-interference by external powers.
What led to Donald Trump take military action and capture the President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro? There could be three possible reasons for his action against Maduro. It is not exactly an US invasion, as the American Congress had not authorised the President to take such action. But that is the nature of US politics where President can order the military for any action and take post-facto approval from Congress. Even though Congress does not endorse President’s action, Maduro has been captured and is being trialled under the US law.
The reasons for invasion include: a kind of revival of Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a strategic concept named after the Fifth President of the United States James Monroe. The Doctrine essentially meant the American dominance of the Western Hemisphere as a distinct sphere of influence for the US while warning European powers against further colonisation or interference in South America. Now, Donald Trump’s action is defined by the US media as ‘Donroe Doctrine’.
The second is Trump’s idea of pushing back China and Russia in South America; mainly China as it has had massive investment in the oil-rich Venezuela. Almost 80 per cent of Venezuela’s oil was purchased by China. Although China was wary of its investment in the face of American push, the Chinese oil giant, Concord International Oil had just signed a 1b USD contract with Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA.
The third reason could be Venezuela’s oil, 300 billion barrels which constitute 17 per cent of world reserve, which is four times more than the US reserves. Donald Trump with his focus on business was eyeing the Venezuelan oil during his first term itself. However, in his second term, capturing the oil market of Venezuela was his first priority. Although Donald Trump does not profess military intervention, he has been doing so for business interest, be it in Venezuela or Iran. Associated with the oil angle, Trump Administration was also quite wary of the Leftist governments in South America. Venezuela and Cuba remained as eyesores for Trump and his Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio.
Venezuela has been embroiled in a political crisis since 2013. The opposition-led National Assembly, backed by the US and several Western countries, had challenged the legitimacy of President Nicolás Maduro’s government. The Maduro regime, supported by Russia, China, and other nations, however maintained control over the government. The crisis deepened in 2019 when Juan Guaidó, the Opposition leader, declared himself interim president, citing constitutional grounds. The US, Canada, and several European nations recognised Guaidó’s leadership, imposing sanctions on Maduro’s government. Maduro, however, refused to step down, enjoying support from key allies like Russia and China.
The US has long been critical of Maduro’s government, citing human rights concerns, drug trafficking and alleged electoral fraud. In 2019, the US imposed severe economic sanctions on Venezuela, targeting its oil industry – a critical sector for the country’s economy. It then imposed naval blockade and fired and killed Venezuelans carrying shipment on the ground of drug trafficking. The recent US invasion, justified as a “humanitarian intervention” to oust Maduro became the last straw on the Camel’s back for Trump.
The invasion has raised questions about international law and the principle of sovereignty. Many experts argue that the US action undermines the United Nations Charter and sets a precarious precedent for interventionism in domestic affairs of sovereign nations.
India, with significant economic interests in Venezuela, has adopted a cautious approach. New Delhi has abstained from explicitly condemning the US invasion, instead calling for “dialogue and peaceful resolution” of the crisis. India’s stance reflects its energy interests as Venezuela is a key oil supplier to India, and stability in the region is crucial for India’s energy security. In terms of India’s avowed strategic autonomy, New Delhi seeks to maintain its independence in foreign policy, avoiding alignment with any particular bloc and India has consistently upheld the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.
India’s Ambassador to the UN, speaking at the UN Security Council, emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution, urging all parties to engage in dialogue. New Delhi’s approach aims to balance its relations with the US while protecting its interests in Venezuela and maintaining ties with Russia and China.
The international community is divided. The US allies Canada and several European nations have implicitly endorsed the invasion by their muted responses. China, Russia, and allies mainly Iran have condemned the invasion, supporting Maduro’s government and sovereignty. China has made the strongest protest and has asked for handing back Maduro to Caracas. It is understandable as Beijing is competing with Washington and its economic interest has been badly hit.
Furthermore, China was making heavy inroads into South America. At one point, Beijing claimed that there were 24 countries signing up for participating in BRI, the biggest strategic push for world influence of Beijing. Global South countries including India, Brazil, and South Africa, advocate for peaceful resolution and dialogue. Among the South American countries, only Cuba has made the sharp reaction to US action on Venezuela.
The US invasion of Venezuela has escalated tensions; the crisis may spill over into neighbouring countries, destabilising the region. It undermines international law; the invasion sets a worrying trend for interventionism. It complicates diplomacy as India’s balancing act may be tested as global pressures mount. It raises humanitarian concerns; the situation has led to reports of civilian casualties and displacement, raising concerns about humanitarian access.
India and Venezuela have traditionally enjoyed cordial ties. Venezuela is a key oil supplier to India, and Indian companies have investments in the country’s oil and gas sector. India had engaged with Maduro’s government on economic cooperation, even as the US and others questioned its legitimacy. However, as the situation unfolds, India faces a delicate balancing act. New Delhi has to protect Indian interests. Ensuring the safety of Indian citizens and investments in Venezuela is the key priority. New Delhi could support multilateral efforts by working with like-minded nations for a peaceful resolution.
The crisis in Venezuela underscores the complexities of geopolitics, where national interests, sovereignty, and global governance intersect. As India navigates this challenging landscape, it must prioritize its interests, uphold international law, and promote peaceful resolution. This is however a text-book diplomatic position. Dialogue and peaceful resolution as a strategy is trite. The world has been thrown into the long-past strategy of realpolitik which meant might is right.
The US action in Venezuela is a stark reflection of such strategy. Given the capricious nature of Donald Trump, who likes quick actions and solutions, he may not think of a regime change in Venezuela as the US has burnt its fingers in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, he would like to pull out sooner than later having ensured the oil business for America. In any case, India will continue to walk the diplomatic tight rope for some time to come. — INFA