THE new year has started with a bang – particularly for Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.
A week ago, in the early hours of the morning, US forces attacked Fuerte Tiuna, a huge military complex where top Venezuelan government officials live, in the capital city of Caracas.
Operation Absolute Resolve began with the US cutting power to the city and then beginning military strikes in at least five locations including the airport, a port and this complex. The explosions were followed by an elite special forces unit, the US Army’s Delta Force, entering the complex to essentially kidnap the president and his wife.
From there they were transported via US military to the Drug Enforcement Agency’s headquarters in New York and onto a detention centre in the city.
READ MORE: Technology Secretary threatens to block UK access to Twitter/X
There is quite a bit to unpack within a word limit, but the reaction from across the international community tells us quite a few things – mainly that the world order as we know it is over.
To be clear, Maduro is not some innocent casualty, but rather an incredibly contentious figure. In 2020, UN investigators said Maduro’s government had committed “egregious violations” amounting to crimes against humanity – and that the president and other top officials were implicated in it. Many have also accused Maduro of election rigging and presiding over an illegitimate presidency Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch went as far as saying she was “glad he’s gone” as he oversaw a “brutal regime”. But even Badenoch publicly admitted that she did not understand the legal basis for Donald Trump’s actions.
It is entirely hypocritical to condemn Maduro’s government for breaching international laws whilst accepting Trump’s breaking of them.
Worse still, the US is not claiming to be removing a despot leader because of tyranny, but rather to charge him with conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism and import cocaine. It’s worth remembering that Trump literally just pardoned Juan Orlando Hernádez, the former president of Honduras, who was serving a 45-year federal prison sentence for smuggling drugs and weapons.
The US claims to have acted in accordance with US law and established protocols, which is of course nonsense. The United Nations Charter prohibits members from threatening or using force against other states.
It allows for “self-defence if an armed attack occurs” – but the threat must be imminent, or when the UN Security Council approves such an action, which the US did not obtain before it took action in Venezuela. What kind of precedent has been set when a country can go into another in the dead of night and abduct people?
For example, Western nations have argued Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be opposed in part because it broke international rules about territorial integrity. Russia has – some may argue understandably so – rejected that assertion, citing the numerous times the West has partaken in military adventurism in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. These actions in Venezuela will no doubt be added to that list.
Many of these conflicts are viewed through the lens of the Cold War, with the idea that there are competing ideologies at play. If that is the case, then the goalposts have certainly shifted. The events of the last week are not about ideologies or drugs – it’s about resources.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves as well as huge quantities of coal, iron ore, bauxite, and gold. When Trump was asked what will happen to the country’s oil reserves and resources he replied, “We’re going to run everything”.
READ MORE: Technology Secretary threatens to block UK access to Twitter/X
Similarly, Trump has repeatedly said that the US should take over Greenland as it would benefit his nation’s security. However, this makes no sense because the US have had the chance to have all the military capabilities they want in Greenland over the last 70 years, and since the Cold War they have closed down 30 of those military installations and bases, keeping only one base.
There is already a treaty between Denmark and the US that grants it a military presence as part of Nato’s defence in Greenland, yet Trump’s administration is discussing a hostile military takeover of Greenland, which would of course be the end of the military alliance.
Once again, this isn’t about national security in the traditional sense, but rather it is about resources. About 80% of Greenland is covered by ice, but due to global warming, uranium, iron and rare earth minerals are becoming more accessible for mining.
Rare earth minerals in particular are crucial for the production of smartphones, electric vehicles and military hardware, something which China has excelled at. China’s production of rare earth minerals far outweighs that of the US.
Keir Starmer’s government promised to not only uphold, but defend, the international rule of law. Add the fact that Starmer himself is a former international human rights lawyer and it is utterly astounding how far he will bend to avoid criticising Trump and the US. It is almost sycophantic – until you realise why.
Successive governments have spoken of the “special relationship” between the US and the UK – but be under no illusions of that relationship being equal. The UK is militarily so reliant on the US that our Prime Minister has to repeatedly kowtow to the obnoxious bully running the US.
The very fact that Nato could potentially crumble overnight, and that Trump is protecting and encouraging ICE agents who kidnap and murder innocent American citizens with impunity, should bring the truth into clarity.
We are entering a new era of competing empires – and none of them look fun to live under.
Share