Can America Change Its Approach?

The US's stance on Venezuela is not merely a product of Donald Trump's administration; rather, it exemplifies a continuity in American foreign policy spanning several decades. Historically, the emphasis has been on resource control, strategic dominance, and intervention rather than genuine advocacy for democracy or human rights. Understanding this historical trend is crucial for grasping the recent developments in Venezuela and recognizing the persistent lessons that US leaders have overlooked.

It’s essential to clarify that Nicolás Maduro does not merit sympathy following his kidnapping by US President Donald Trump. Both Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have been detrimental to the wellbeing of their citizens. Venezuela, which boasts the largest confirmed oil reserves globally, has unfortunately become a source of mass displacement. The recent elections did not lead to the restoration of the rightful leader, who remains alive, which suggests that the US's intent was not to promote democracy. Contrast this with María Corina Machado, a recent Nobel laureate recognized for her valiant resistance against the Maduro regime, who receives scant acknowledgment in US political discourse.

Claims that “no American lives were harmed” during the operation do not align with reports from Cuba, which states that approximately 25 of its citizens lost their lives in the process. Additionally, fatalities among Venezuelans have surpassed 55 and are still being calculated. The efficiency of US propaganda obscures the deaths of Cubans, Venezuelans, and others from nations often derogatorily referred to as “Shithole countries.” Meanwhile, the public memory is selective; the US government's staged representations concerning Maduro's residence created for training purposes, while visually impressive, silence the tragic ramifications of these actions and the ongoing suffering, which Trump seems to celebrate. History ultimately favors those in power, leaving the defeated, be they in Uganda, Venezuela, or Cuba today, to suffer in silence.

From the American perspective, Maduro’s alleged transgressions include his role in instigating the refugee crisis impacting both Venezuela and neighboring countries, including the United States. This accusation possesses a degree of validity, as many can comprehend how keeping a leader who could trigger a severe refugee crisis in check might seem necessary. However, the assertion that he is a drug trafficker, used to justify his abduction, lacks substance and is almost absurd when examined closely. Consider these points:

\- If the US genuinely aims to punish drug dealers, one must question why former Honduran President, who was convicted of similar crimes, was pardoned by Trump, while Colombia, a neighboring country and a known epicenter for drugs, has not experienced the same fate for its leaders.

\- Venezuela possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, dwarfing the global value of the illegal drug trade.

\- This raises doubts regarding whether the US genuinely prioritizes combating drugs over maintaining strategic advantages related to oil and political sway. Trump has explicitly stated that the Venezuelan government must align with US interests or face consequences that would surpass Maduro’s.

Understanding Historical Context: US Interests Abroad

Since the conclusion of World War II, the United States has consistently been the most interventionist nation in military history. No other country exhibits a similar pattern. Propaganda, like the narratives propagated through the Voice of America that I encountered during my schooling years, has consistently portrayed the US as a benevolent force globally while depicting the Soviet Union as the embodiment of evil.

Nuclear weapon development serves as a poignant example of this selective morality. When the US succeeded in creating a bomb capable of obliterating cities, it was heralded as a miraculous achievement. In contrast, when the Soviets matched or surpassed that power, their creation was condemned as barbaric, despite resulting in equivalent devastation and fallout. This narrative is reinforced in Hollywood films and historical accounts, which glorify US military efforts while neglecting the suffering of local populations.

For instance, accounts of North Africa during WWII focus on British and German forces while largely ignoring the civilian toll in places like Tunis and Algiers. Likewise, campaigns in the Pacific frequently exclude the experiences of local people. The American perspective frequently elevates the extraction of resources beneficial to the US, even at the expense of local communities. Additionally, international law is applied in a manner that conveniently aligns with American interests.

Historical Lessons

1\. Vietnam: After WWII, Vietnam proclaimed its independence from French colonial rule on September 2, 1945, led by Ho Chi Minh. He reached out to US President Harry Truman for recognition and support, arguing for Vietnam’s sovereignty after fighting alongside US forces against the Japanese occupation. The US ignored these pleas, backing France instead due to fears of communism, which prolonged the conflict.

2\. Iran: In 1951, following the democratic election of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's oil industry was nationalized, disrupting British interests. The CIA, alongside British intelligence, executed a covert operation in August 1953 to overthrow Mossadegh, leading to the establishment of an autocratic regime that eventually laid the groundwork for future turmoil.

3\. Chile: In 1970, Salvador Allende, a Marxist, assumed the presidency of Chile after a democratic vote. CIA documents reveal efforts to undermine his government; Allende’s prioritization of his citizens’ welfare led to US-backed military action that resulted in his assassination.

4\. Congo: Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, sought independence and appealed to the US for support; however, he was labeled a communist threat, leading to US sanctions against him. Ultimately, he was executed with foreign support.

Identifying a Reoccurring Pattern

Across Southeast Asia, South America, the Middle East, and Africa, US interventions have repeatedly favored American interests—focusing on oil, resources, and territory rather than the principles of democracy and human rights. Although some altruistic leaders like Jimmy Carter have moderated this approach, the overarching pattern of US foreign policy remains the prioritization of resources and geopolitical objectives over democratic values. In the age of Trump, there exists an alarming scenario where a self- serving nation is helmed by a leader lacking maturity and wisdom.

Maduro’s Reign in Venezuela Today

While accepting that Maduro’s leadership has caused harm to Venezuelans, one must ask: does this justly endorse American control over Venezuela's oil? With Maduro in custody, what steps are in place to ensure the establishment of a government that will uphold human rights? Will Trump:

\- Restore the legitimate winner of the 2024 election?

\- Promote María Corina Machado, the Nobel-winning figure?

\- Organize free elections overseen by international authorities?

So far, none of these approaches have been indicated. Instead, there seems to be an inclination to negotiate with Maduro’s remaining administration, comprised of several unpopular figures implicated in human rights violations.

Trump has professed a desire to manage Venezuela “with America’s interests” in mind while appearing to care for the Venezuelan populace. However, history highlights that American intervention has traditionally been driven by self- serving motives rather than humanitarian efforts. Leaders who prioritize their citizens’ needs above American interests are rarely effectively supported, reflecting a historical pattern.

Final Thoughts

The US’s methodology concerning Venezuela does not stand as an isolated incident attributable to Trump’s presidency. It reflects a longstanding trend in American foreign policy where intervention for resource control often overshadows the promotion of democracy and human rights. A sound comprehension of these historical perspectives sheds light on Venezuela’s current situation and reveals profound insights that US policymakers have routinely neglected.