Source: Michelle Ellner, Common Dreams
Today, the question resounding in Washington is whether Donald Trump will invade Venezuela. Yet, the more insidious reality is that he likely will not! Partly because he is afraid of the loss of many American lives, but mostly because he has adopted a far cheaper and politically safer strategy: economic warfare. This method, while less visible, is no less devastating.
Since Hugo Chavez ruled the South American country, Venezuela has endured years of economic onslaught, characterized by U.S. sanctions designed to cripple its economy. To the dismay of its enemies, the nation has shown remarkable resilience as it has adapted through alternative marketing of its products, community initiatives, and creative survival strategies. This endurance is precisely what the Trump administration aims to dismantle.
Rather than risking military backlash and American lives, Trump has chosen to intensify economic asphyxiation. By restricting Venezuelan oil exports, the government is deliberately pushing the country toward a humanitarian disaster. Recent U.S. actions, including the harassment of oil tankers associated with Venezuela, signify a disturbing shift from financial pressure to maritime coercion. These maneuvers illustrate a strategy aimed at suffocation, and it is reminiscent of the submarine warfare the Nazis imposed on American convoys in the Second World War. Trump is acting as a Pirate of the Caribbean, and knowing what kind of scum he is, he is probably enjoying it.
Not for long, though, as such actions violate international law, and one day he will be brought to an international tribunal to pay for his actions. The freedom of navigation on the high seas is a principle enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The unilateral interdiction of commercial vessels, absent UN authorization, undermines sovereign rights and constitutes coercion. In addition, this relentless pursuit of sanctions is a form of collective punishment, intended to fracture the spirit of Venezuelans. However, he will ultimately fail because his actions strengthen Venezuelan resolve and resilience, turning the majority of the population against him.
A crime against humanity
Trump’s calculation is brutally straightforward: make Venezuelans suffer to incite a rebellion against Maduro. By obstructing oil exports—the lifeblood of Venezuela’s economy—he jeopardizes food imports, healthcare, and essential services. Under international humanitarian law, collective punishment is strictly prohibited for precisely targeting civilians to achieve political ends. He is familiar with the game, as he has been selling weapons to the Netanyahu regime, resulting in harm to children and contributing to the suffering of Palestinians. The catastrophic repercussions of this policy are already unfolding in Venezuela as they did in Gaza all year long: empty supermarket shelves, malnourished children, overwhelmed hospitals—scenes reminiscent of regions under siege where starvation has become a weapon of warfare.
The end result of this madness is that it will undoubtedly force millions of Venezuelans to flee their homeland, seeking refuge in a U.S. that they believe offers safety and opportunity. Yet, at the same time, Trump is sealing the borders, criminalizing migration, and denying asylum. This creates a horrific paradox: the U.S. destroys livelihoods in Venezuela while refusing to accept those fleeing the devastation it has caused, thereby outsourcing the fallout to neighboring countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Chile—regions already grappling with their own economic hardships. Many refugees will likely arrive in Honduras or El Salvador, where pro-Trump regimes are in control. They may become future soldiers attempting to overthrow the legitimate Venezuelan government.
Venezuela acts as a test case for these tactics. What is currently being refined—an economic siege devoid of formal war, maritime coercion without a declared blockade, starvation without bombs—will serve as a template for future interventions in any nation defying U.S. demands not only in South America but everywhere in the world. Let’s not forget that Trump's approach aims to capture markets from the Chinese by quietly inflicting slow, methodical devastation, allowing him to present himself as having opted against war.
Like Castro, like Chavez
This strategy echoes the long-standing U.S. stance toward Cuba, which has borne the brunt of economic strangulation for over six decades. History has shown that economic warfare rarely brings democracy or liberation; instead, it fosters suffering and chaos. Even if it led to the toppling of the Venezuelan government, the aftermath could plunge the nation into protracted civil strife, destabilizing the entire region for generations. This is the main reason why Exxon executives refused to invest in a post-Maduro Venezuela; they have been burned in the past and do not want to make the same mistake again.
As the New Year approaches, and the siege continues, this may be one of the last times Venezuelans can enjoy the luxury of peace. The specter of starvation looms, threatening to extinguish a way of life that is already precariously hanging by a thread.
Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose military intervention in Venezuela, yet sanctions cannot be viewed as a benign alternative, especially with Gaza in mind. This perception that Trump is trying to sell is dangerously misguided, as research indicates that sanctions can lead to mortality rates comparable to armed conflict, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable populations.
If we oppose war for its lethality, we must likewise contend with the lethal impact of sanctions, which enact an insidious form of violence—slow, quiet, yet deeply destructive. It is incumbent upon us to confront economic warfare with the same urgency we reserve for military actions. Should we fail to do so, sanctions will remain the weapon of choice: politically expedient but as deadly as any bomb.
No comments:
Post a Comment