RG: Does this intervention deal another blow to the credibility of international law globally?
Aprajita Kashyap (AK): There is a lot of debate about whether this intervention or others by the US were justified. The US has claimed that its interventions are intended to protect its security interests, investments, democracy and human rights, and to promote development. The US has also advanced the argument about balancing the regional security architecture. The question of whether the US intervention in Venezuela is justified is highly normative and contested. It can be understood by breaking it into two parts.
First, what is ‘intervention’? It would constitute interference in a country’s internal affairs. Then, is the intervention in Venezuela, in part, morally motivated by genuine concerns about democracy and human suffering? It is also a very political, ethical and problematic issue. Since Venezuela is a sovereign state, the US’s intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign state amounts to an intrusion and legally lacks legitimacy.
The US concerns may be legitimate, as they cite the authoritarian rule of Nicolas Maduro, which has prompted many Venezuelans to seek refuge in the US. There is also a regional repercussion, as Venezuelans are fleeing as refugees and immigrating to the US because of authoritarian rule and the consequent humanitarian crisis. Many scholars argue that the US position is justified because it intervenes to help ordinary Venezuelans.
From an international law perspective, there are significant problems. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that “All members should refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Taking the above definition into consideration, one may ask: Is force being used? The US action has justified the use of force, as it has used force and captured President Maduro and his wife. Thus, this constitutes a clear breach of Article 2(4). Second, there must be UN Security Council authorisation for any intervention. That was not taken. Third, was there an imminent threat to the US? A country can attack another only in self-defence, when there is a threat to its national integrity. But there was no imminent threat to the national security of the US from Venezuela here. So, it is clearly not an act of self-defence.
Going by these three criteria, I can confidently say that the stance of the US is not legally justified.
But Trump has a counter-argument here. He said it is a ‘law-enforcement operation’. Even that has to be backed by congressional approval. Why was the US Congress’s authorisation not taken?
Thus, there are significant takeaways. Intervention in Venezuela is justified to the extent that it concerns democracy and humanitarian protection, but not in its current coercive form, as it undermines a country’s sovereignty, lacks legitimacy under international law, and does not guarantee improvement in the current state of affairs in Venezuela.
RG: Donald Trump says the US will be heavily involved in the Venezuelan oil reserves. What major developments can we expect in this regard?
Aprajita Kashyap (AK): The entire intervention of the US in Venezuela boils down to three issues. First, there is the problem of the dominant ideology in Venezuela: socialism. Second is control over a crucial natural resource, in this case, it is oil. The third concerns the hegemonic aspect of international relations. Venezuela has developed deep relations with China, Russia and Iran. The US, which considers Latin America its backyard, is uncomfortable with the three’s presence in the country’s economic sectors. More problematic is the extent to which the three have shown interest in investing in Venezuela’s oil sector.
Therefore, Venezuela has already found some investors. If the US is forcing itself to be the primary investor and to control oil production and refining, it will be problematic because of potential clashes. So far, all the major oil refineries in Venezuela have been owned by the US. It did not begin with Trump — in 2019, the Joe Biden Administration froze the assets of the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA. What Trump is doing is merely taking a step forward.
Venezuela may have the largest oil reserves, but production is very low, possibly due to mismanagement, decaying infrastructure, or Maduro’s limited authority, even when compared with the period under Hugo Chavez. It would require a massive capital investment.
However, Venezuela is not seeking US investment. The US is forcing itself. For Venezuela, the only benefit of attracting US investment is a guarantee of security and political stability. The country will not face sanctions, and its oil supplies can find proper markets. That will help.
If you ask me about US oil companies’ investment and reconstruction in the Venezuelan oil sector, then yes, there is a possibility. But the turnaround may be slow. That is because the problem lies not in investment but in the political regime, culture and decaying infrastructure. If you want a replacement, that will take time.
Second, expecting a sharp rise in Venezuelan oil output soon is highly unlikely, given the long gestation period. The US cannot simply enter and commence operations. There is a legal framework for investment that will be complex and will require weeks to months.
In the medium to long term, yes, there will be a shift in global oil trade patterns. But looking at how the US has been behaving, I think Venezuelans will be very cautious or guarded about allowing US investment.
