The United States’ recent actions concerning Venezuela are drawing sharp criticism and sparking concerns about broader geopolitical repercussions, according to leading international experts. Princeton historian Herold James has declared the intervention “clearly unlawful under international law” warning of “dramatic consequences for world politics.
James’ assessment, shared with the Handelsblatt, suggests a deliberate strategic signaling beyond the immediate Venezuelan situation. He posits that former President Trump’s actions have provided a tacit endorsement for aggressive behavior on the part of both Russia and China. Specifically, James stated that Putin may now feel emboldened to continue his trajectory in Ukraine, while Xi Jinping could interpret the move as a ‘green light’ for potential actions regarding Taiwan. This reading suggests a deliberate calculation within the former administration to project strength through assertive foreign policy, irrespective of legal or regional stability considerations.
The intervention, while ostensibly aimed at promoting democracy and alleviating humanitarian suffering, has opened a Pandora’s Box of complex questions. Former US NATO ambassador Julianne Smith, also speaking to the Handelsblatt, acknowledged that Maduro’s departure would not be lamented by many, but cautioned that the operation itself raises “a series of difficult questions” hinting at the potential for unintended consequences and a fragile post-intervention environment.
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff echoed these concerns, highlighting the potential for escalating regional instability. Referring to the Maduro regime as a “malignant growth” within the Western Hemisphere, Rogoff emphasized the precariousness of the situation and the uncertainty surrounding the level of US commitment required to secure a stable transition. He questioned the feasibility of engineering a sustainable political shift, suggesting the anticipated instability could easily metastasize throughout the region, necessitating potentially prolonged and costly US involvement.
The ongoing situation underscores the escalating tensions between the US and its geopolitical rivals, while highlighting the complexities and potential pitfalls of interventionist foreign policy. The divergent perspectives of these prominent figures – a historian’s legal critique, a diplomat’s pragmatic assessment and an economist’s warning of systemic instability – contribute to a deeply unsettling picture of the future, demanding a reassessment of the US role in global affairs.
