On Jan. 3, the second-to-last day of the winter holiday that I may fully cherish, I saw the news that the U.S. forces had captured the paramount leader of Venezuela at the time, Nicolás Maduro. It all happened at such speed that when I read the news, the secret operations had already succeeded: Maduro and his family were on their way, heading to New York and awaiting trial, specifically on charges of committing narco-terrorism and importing cocaine. However, I believe the impact of this mission will be much more extensive. Now, two weeks have passed, and questions still linger in my mind: What will the long-term implications be for the Venezuelan opposition and the Venezuelan people? What does this mean for democracy in general?
When I discussed this topic with people close by, there seemed to be two dominant perspectives. Some argue, based on procedural justice, that this mission is unlawful and has set a dangerous precedent for global intervention. It is centered on the idea that there would not be just results if there were not a just process; achieving one’s goal by any means will lead to greater injustice.
On the other hand, others argue, based on substantive justice, that a just cause is more important, especially when a catastrophe is unstoppable domestically. It is centered on the idea that internationally recognized human rights weigh more than national sovereignty during a humanitarian or democratic crisis.
I would nevertheless argue that debates over procedural and substantive justice might be relevant in cases such as the capture of the Panamanian military dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno in 1989. However, the capture of Maduro has gone well beyond this debate and raised significant moral concerns.
The two missions indeed have a lot of similarities: Noriega and Maduro both oppressed opposition and claimed victory in elections in which they were internationally recognized as the losers, they were both captured by U.S. forces in an area outside the direct judicial jurisdiction of the United States, and they were all facing charges related to drugs. However, there is a major difference in its aftermath. Immediately after Noriega's capture, the US backed Guillermo Endara, the opposition candidate in the 1989 election, for president, which eventually led to Panama’s transformation into a democracy. Like the U.S.'s interest in Venezuela's oil, the U.S. has a strong interest in Panama, especially regarding the previously controlled Panama Canal; it did not demand the return of the Panama Canal in exchange for its support.
Venezuela arguably is quite distinctive. The current administration has shown significant interest in extracting oil resources and profiting from Venezuela's oil reserves through this mission. By pressuring Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez on topics of oil and urging leaders of the U.S. oil industry to invest in Venezuela, the government has significantly emphasized oil, hinting that it is the priority of this mission rather than building more democratic institutions.
Then, more unanswered questions kept running through my mind. If the mission was about shifting the institution democratically, why did the current administration decide to capture Maduro but, so far, has maintained the status quo of its so-called oppressive government? If the mission was about punishing drug trafficking, why did the U.S. not capture other accomplices that have been indicted, like Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello Rondón? If it claims to support the people in Venezuela, why has it not consulted with opposition leaders like María Corina Machado prior to the mission? If the administration is supporting the global democratization movement, why has it attempted to claim Canada as a state and not ruled out seizing Greenland, both of which are widely considered democratic entities?
I believe we must first determine whether the mission is motivated by a democratic transition or by its actual aim. If the core purpose was solely for obtaining the oil in Venezuela, does this not make other nations’ accusations of the U.S. 's imperialist and arbitrary resource exploitation self-evident? Does it not fuel nationalism and justify the current Venezuelan government's continued rule? Such a mission, lacking a clear objective and driven solely by American interests, is undoubtedly a severe blow to a small nation’s efforts to achieve long-term democratic transition.
