FAFO
The US invasion of Venezuela last weekend wasn’t about drugs. It wasn’t about “nation building”, and it wasn’t about democracy. By Sunday afternoon, Americans and the world got down to the real reasons for the incursion. Meanwhile, as the US bragged about only three Americans wounded, reports are that at least forty Venezuelans were killed (NYT). Under the aegis of Defense Secretary Hegseth’s favorite phrase, the Venezuelans “FAFO’ed”. (F**k Around and Find Out. He addressed this to the world along with Trump, Rubio, and the Chief of Staff). That’s along with the 115 others killed in the “boat strikes” (NPR). I bet little Pete has “high score” in his FAFO game.
The US military invaded a foreign capital and took the President and his wife. The two were staged for pictures, then transported to a prison in New York. They’ll stand trial on drug conspiracy charges, much like Juan Hernandez, the former President of Honduras. He was sentenced to a forty-five year Federal prison term. President Trump pardoned him a few weeks ago.
Righteous Might
So why did the United States set the “example” of using our “righteous might” against a much smaller nation? President Trump himself said it: oil. The Trump Administration wants access to Venezuelan oil reserves, the largest in the world (World Population). The inept corruption of the Maduro Administration left that nation with only a trickle of what could be production outdoing Saudi Arabia. Trump claimed that the oil in the Venezuelan ground was really “US oil”, stolen from American companies in 1976 when the resource was nationalized. At that time, the big multi-national petroleum companies (Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, et al) were compensated; paid more than a billion dollars for their assets. And they were invited to stay (Caracas).
And, Venezuela has a vast wealth of “rare earths”, minerals to be mined to help fuel the modern world. Nickel, bauxite, iron ore and many others are potentially available (Investor News). But since the Venezuelan government has done little to “open up” that “rare earth” wealth, the US is coming in to get it.
Gunboat Diplomacy
This isn’t new. In 1853 US Commodore Matthew Perry sailed a fleet into Tokyo Bay, and pointed his cannons at the Japanese capital. He gave them a choice: negotiate with us, or we will attack. The Japanese recognized the inevitable, and opened trade discussions with the Americans, and Perry’s action became the prime example of “Gunboat Diplomacy”. Using force to open up regions to US economic development didn’t stop there.
The late 19th and early 20th century were replete with US examples of military force against smaller nations. In Central and South America, the US sent in ships and troops dozens of times over the years, often to support US companies, especially oil, mineral and agricultural companies (US Sugar and Anaconda Copper are just two). It’s what the US Marines “did” in the late 19th century.
So let’s call this invasion what it is: the US stealing control of the economic development of Venezuela. It’s the same reason that Trump blew up at Ukrainian President Zelenskyy during a public meeting at the White House last year. Trump wanted Ukrainian “rare earths”; Zelenskyy wasn’t willing to give away Ukraine’s resources.
19th Century Policy – 21st Century World
Trump loves the economic policies of the late 19th century; tariffs, and now, forced economic development and Gunboat Diplomacy. “Imperial America” is throwing out migrants from South and Central America, and then threatening to take over their birthplaces as well. Venezuela was first, Columbia and Cuba may be next on the list. The Gerald Ford Carrier Group is still on duty in the Caribbean.
And, in a wholly amoral way, Trump’s view might be successful. He sees the world as a “zero sum game”, either we get the resources or someone else does. I’m sure he’s found a way to personally profit from this as well, but in the larger sense, it’s a simplistic economic view that might have some support.
But there’s a bigger issue here, in the 21st Century. If the US can do this, then what prevents other “big nations” from taking over smaller nations. How are US actions in Venezuela different from Putin’s action in Ukraine? What about China, looking for any excuse to try to subsume the independent island nation of Taiwan, and the East China Sea?
Where is the “moral standing” of the United States, if we are doing exactly the same thing in Venezuela, and other countries within our “sphere of influence”? After all, this is the historic “Donroe Doctrine” (European Council). But, the US has been doing this since John Quincy Adams (the Monroe Doctrine, that is), back in 1823. Surely what was “good policy” then, is still right for modern America, and the modern world?
