Venezuela and the Use of U.S. Power: Weighing the Pros, Cons, and Unanswered Questions
- Lynn Matthews
- Jan 4
- 3 min read
The initial reaction to reports of U.S. involvement in Venezuela has been emotional, polarized, and in many cases reflexive. That response was predictable. What deserves more attention now is a calmer question: what are the actual arguments for and against this action — and what precedents does it invoke?
This is not about cheering or condemning. It is about understanding.
What We Know
Nicolás Maduro was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020 on charges including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking.
The indictment was not symbolic; it was accompanied by formal charges, evidence filings, and public warrants.
U.S. officials have long accused the Maduro government of operating as a state-linked criminal enterprise.
Some legal scholars argue the operation violates international norms; others point to longstanding doctrines and precedents that complicate that claim.
These facts form the foundation of the debate — not social media slogans.
The Case For U.S. Action Against the Venezuela President
1. Enforcement of an Existing Indictment
Maduro was not targeted without warning or process. The charges against him were filed years ago. From this perspective, the action represents law enforcement escalation, not spontaneous regime change.
This raises a difficult but legitimate question: If indictments against heads of state are never enforced, what purpose do they serve?
2. Precedent of Targeting Criminal Leadership
The United States has previously taken unilateral action against individuals it accused of international crimes — including Osama bin Laden. While the circumstances differ, the precedent exists: extraterritorial enforcement when extradition is impossible.
That does not settle the legality — but it complicates claims that the action is unprecedented.
3. Regional Stability Considerations
Venezuela’s collapse has contributed to mass migration, criminal trafficking, and regional destabilization. Supporters argue that removing leadership accused of facilitating those conditions could reduce long-term harm — even if short-term instability follows.
4. Signal to Other Criminal Regimes
If a government can be credibly accused of running a narco-state and face no consequences, that sets a precedent of its own. Supporters argue enforcement matters not just in Venezuela, but globally.
The Case Against U.S. Action
1. International Law and Sovereignty
Critics argue that unilateral action violates international norms and undermines state sovereignty. Even if charges are valid, enforcement outside multilateral frameworks raises serious concerns.
This is not a fringe argument — it is one shared by allies and adversaries alike.
2. Precedent Cuts Both Ways
If the U.S. asserts the right to enforce indictments against foreign leaders, other nations may claim the same authority. The question becomes: Who decides which indictments justify force?
3. Risk of Power Vacuums
History shows that removing leadership does not guarantee stability. Power vacuums can lead to factional violence, humanitarian crises, or prolonged instability — outcomes critics argue may worsen conditions for civilians.
4. Perception Matters
Even if oil is not the motive, skepticism is understandable given Venezuela’s resources and past U.S. involvement in the region. Perception alone can inflame opposition, undermine legitimacy, and complicate diplomacy.
Legal Gray Zones and Competing Doctrines
Some defenders point to historical U.S. policy frameworks such as the Monroe Doctrine, while critics argue those doctrines are outdated or misapplied. Others cite international criminal law norms that rarely contemplate enforcement against sitting heads of state without multilateral approval.
What emerges is not clarity — but collision between legal theories.
Uncomfortable Questions Worth Asking
Can international law meaningfully restrain criminal states without enforcement?
Does refusing to act enable authoritarian regimes — or prevent escalation?
Is selective enforcement better than none at all?
At what point does non-intervention become complicity?
These are not rhetorical questions. They remain unanswered.
Conclusion
Reasonable people can disagree about U.S. involvement in Venezuela without denying facts or resorting to slogans. Maduro’s indictment is real. Concerns about sovereignty are real. Historical precedents exist — and so do historical warnings.
What matters now is resisting the urge to simplify a complex issue into moral absolutes. The truth, as usual, sits uncomfortably between them.
Comments