When questioned by a reporter what his new year’s resolution was, President Trump responded “Peace. Peace on Earth”. Three days later he launched an unprecedented attack on Venezuela. On Saturday 3 January, the FIFA peace prize recipient announced a large-scale US strike on Venezuela and the capturing of Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple have now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump says the US is going to “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”. The attack saw at least 40 people, including civilians and Venezuelan soldiers, die. Therefore it appears Mr Trump is going to have to find another new year’s resolution.

No one will mourn the removal of Nicolas Maduro. In fact, many Venezuelan immigrants in the US and the UK have celebrated his capture, saying “it is impossible not to feel relief”. The Venezuelan leader is seen by many as a dictator as he relied on the secret police, disappearances and persecution to keep his grip on power. He has run an authoritarian state since 2013 with the help of elections widely regarded as rigged and fraudulent. Over seven million Venezuelans fled the country during his rule. So now there is one less dictator in the world terrorising its people. Whilst some people may consider this to be a victory, it cannot be denied that the manner in which he was removed is deeply troubling and raises significant geopolitical concerns about international law and state sovereignty.

This military operation appears to have little to no legal or constitutional authority. The US has ultimately invaded a sovereign nation without UN authorisation, kidnapped a sitting head of state and has done so acting not on the basis of international law but on its own domestic law. State sovereignty is the principle that a state holds supreme and independent authority over its territory and people, free from external control. The US’s actions, therefore, are a serious cause for concern because it sends a message that as long as you have the military clout you can do what you want, to whoever you want, on the international stage. It highlights the erosion of the rules based international order, where law is increasingly overshadowed by power. The geopolitical implications of this are very dangerous. Other powerful nations such as China may feel empowered to pursue their own territorial and strategic ambitions by force.

The public justification of this military operation by the Trump administration has been about drugs. Trump has been focused on fighting the influx of drugs – especially fentanyl and cocaine – into the US. He has framed this attack on Venezuela as a broader war on narcotics and has accused Maduro of running a “narco terrorist organisation”. Without providing evidence, Trump has also accused Maduro of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums” and “forcing” its inmates to migrate to the US. From the justification some may argue that Trump is simply acting in the national interest to protect the American population from the alleged flow of drugs and criminal networks linked to Maduro. Framed this way, the operation can be presented as a defensive measure aimed at safeguarding public health and domestic security, rather than as an overtly aggressive act against a sovereign state.

However, it would be illogical to think that this is the only reason for the attack. In fact, many of Trump’s claims about drugs have been criticised as there is little evidence.

For example, counternarcotic experts have explained that Venezuela is a minor player when it comes to global drug trafficking. Cocaine is mainly produced in Colombia and most of it is said to enter the US through other routes, rather than Venezuela. Fentanyl, the other drug that Trump has raised concerns about, is mainly produced in Mexico and enters the US almost exclusively via land through its southern border. 

Therefore, it would appear that the central basis of justification for this attack is very weak. Realist international relations theory teaches us that states are self-interested, power-seeking actors driven by survival in an anarchic world. This means that they will use any means necessary to achieve their aims. In this case, the US has ignored the principle of state sovereignty in order to achieve its objectives. For some, its objectives extend beyond the stated aim of combating drug trafficking. Maduro and political commentators have accused the US of using the so-called “war on drugs” as a pretext to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world, making it an especially attractive target for external influence and intervention. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the rationale behind this military operation was drug-related.

Analysis from Sky News highlights exactly why Trump may be seeking access to Venezuelan oil. Whilst the US is the world’s largest oil producer, it primarily produces light crude. However, most of its refineries are designed to process heavy oil. Because upgrading refineries would cost billions, the US remains heavily dependent on imports of heavy crude, exporting much of its own oil while importing thousands of barrels daily for refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Venezuela, therefore, is strategically important because it holds some of the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil.

The significance of oil in this whole situation was reinforced by President Trump during his press conference on Saturday in which oil was referred to more than a dozen times. Trump said Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back. This belief that the oil had been stolen is based on Venezuela’s nationalisation of its oil industry between the 1970s and the 2000s, forcing most US oil companies out. The president also claimed US occupation “won’t cost a penny” as the country will be reimbursed from “money coming out of the ground”. He explained that he plans to have major American energy multinationals invest “billions and billions of dollars” to rebuild the country’s “rotted” oil infrastructure.

Clearly, this has never been solely about drugs. The US’s actions therefore set a dangerous precedent. Whilst the fall of a dictator may offer short-term satisfaction, when achieved at the expense of state sovereignty and the rules based international system, it risks contributing to a more dangerous and unpredictable world.