Why US actions in Venezuela could backfire across the globe 

There is no question that Venezuela without Nicolas Maduro would be a better place; indeed, the region and the world would benefit from his demise.

However, as boats allegedly carrying narcotics from Venezuela are blown out of the water without warning, and as the prospect of a major armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela comes ever closer to reality, it may be useful to reflect upon some of the possible consequences such actions could have beyond the Western hemisphere.

There are good reasons to bring pressure to bear on the Venezuelan regime. Maduro, his predecessor Hugo Chavez, and their circle of crooks, cronies and pseudo-ideological supporters have brought untold misery to a country that was once one of the most prosperous in Latin America.  

Under Maduro’s rule, nearly 8 million Venezuelans — a quarter of the country’s population — have sought refuge abroad from persecution or privation, creating a humanitarian crisis throughout the region.

The economic toll has been devastating. Due to incompetence and corruption, Venezuela’s oil production dropped from more than 3 million barrels per day when Chavez came to power in 1999 to approximately 900,000 barrels per day currently.

The Venezuelan regime arguably does pose a threat to its neighbors and to U.S. national security by providing a haven for narcotics traffickers and Colombia’s National Liberation Army guerillas.

Cuban, Iranian, Russian and Chinese security services act in concert with Venezuela to promote their strategic interests, project influence and undermine democracy in the region.

So, what is wrong with adopting an aggressive military posture toward such a clearly malevolent actor?

First, the consensus view among legal experts is that blowing up boats on the high seas without provocation and without warning is a violation of international law.

Doing so risks setting a precedent that could backfire against the United States in places like the South China Sea, where the United States has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. 

China has been increasingly aggressive in asserting its claims to Philippine shoals and territorial waters.

Until now there have been close calls and some minor injuries (excluding two Chinese fatalities likely due to their own poor seamanship), and U.S. actions in the Caribbean may embolden the Chinese as they defy international law.

Second, however inappropriate a comparison between the odious Maduro regime and the Ukrainian government, any military action by the U.S. against Venezuela would be utilized by Vladimir Putin as symmetrical justification for his unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Such “whataboutism” is a staple of Russian propaganda. 

While that would likely have minimal effect on public opinion in countries which have been supportive of Ukraine, it is a narrative that could gain traction in countries of the Global South, which the Russians have been assiduously courting. 

The putative parallelism of a U.S. military operation in Venezuela and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine could reinforce the Kremlin narrative that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine due the threat that it posed to Russia.

In practical terms, that could sway votes among the fence sitters in the United Nations General Assembly and erode what has been until now a majority in support of Ukraine.

The concept of international law may seem quaint in an evolving “multipolar world order” in which the ends justify the means. Furthermore, most Venezuelans would not shed a tear over the end of the Maduro regime. 

However, in taking unilateral action without regard to the unintended legal consequences, the United States risks setting precedents that will not always redound to its benefit.

Edward S. Verona is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center and a former vice president of Government Relations for Chevron based in Caracas from 2001 to 2003.