U.S. strikes on Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, and the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, open a new front in global conflict amid ongoing wars on the international stage.
The Trump Administration’s recent incursion into Venezuela demonstrates shotgun diplomacy. Whereas the normalized format of diplomacy—utilizing institutions to resolve international disputes—shotgun diplomacy uses force and threats of violence or dire consequences to coerce compliance. With these actions, it sets the stage for potentially severe ramifications against the U.S. The problem is that in its current state, namely with the leadership of a highly unqualified cabinet, this Administration is ill-equipped to address the coming responses by Maduro backers, or those who disagree with the latest round of U.S. aggression.
There are several regional blowback concerns resulting from the actions of removing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, which can result in the destabilization of the region, leading to potential political-economic conflicts in the landlocked bordering states of the South American country.
Deployment of soldiers. To complete the military objective or regime change in Venezuela, the Trump administration will have to place U.S. troops on the ground.
Regime change in Venezuela cannot occur without removing Maduro loyalists within governmental and military institutional structures. More importantly, extracting Maduro supporters takes pertinent, skilled technocrats with the ability to sustain administrative systems without imploding the country into civil unrest. To prevent such actions like a massive resistance in the rebuilding of Venezuela’s institutional systems; and to formulate a democratic infrastructure, the deployment of military troops, or U.S personnel on the ground to assist is critical.
Adding to an already volatile scenario, the U.S cannot conduct a successful regime change unless it’s committed to remaining in Venezuela for a prolonged period to establish democratic institutions, which were eroded over the extended periods of socialist rule for a better part of 36 years. To implement such changes, the Trump administration would need to convince Venezuela’s social forces that trading one dictator for a foreign military neocolonialization force would bring freedom, equality, and economic prosperity for all.
What is for sure, the presence of troops from this incursion creates the high possibility that will lead to asymmetric, urban warfare in the country, placing U.S troops at significant risk.
Refugee crisis and border conflicts. Regionally, the removal of the Maduro regime could destabilize the region by creating the displacements of many Venezuelans, creating a flow of refugees into the neighboring states of Colombia, Suriname, Brazil, and Guyana.
From years of an unstable country, there are already copious amounts of Venezuelan expats in bordering nations that has placed a strain on the social welfare systems of those underdeveloped states. With the uncertainty of a perpetual occupation of U.S forces in Venezuela, it would further expedite the insurgency of refugees flowing into Guyana, a country that has a similar booming oil industry as Venezuela. Because Guyana’s nascent oil industry has yet to infuse the country with resources to develop a sturdy infrastructure, the strain of more Venezuelan refugees, can force the state into further economic underdevelopment.
Grabbing resources means destabilizing South American growth in the global economy. What many may not know, Guyana is full of oilmen from the U.S. and the U.K. who have been developing the petro economy in major offshore oil extraction. Mainly, ExxonMobile, in partnership with HESS, extracts millions of barrels per day, making Guyana the third largest petroleum-producing country per capita in the world. Long-term conflicts in the region could also potentially serve as the catalyst for asymmetric attacks on Western personnel and infrastructure in countries such as Guyana, where there are large populations of Americans working in the new oil industry.
From a regional perspective, analysis of South America will highlight countries such as Guyana due to their weak military capabilities, infrastructure, and ideological alignment with the United States. It could also serve as a catalyst for proxy attacks on the political, economic, and social structures of American allies in the region, leading to heightened tensions similar to the height of the Cold War.
Setting the stage for lawlessness. The shotgun diplomacy carried out by the U.S. in the form of invasion into Venezuela, has signaled to foreign hegemonic actors that deposing heads of state unilaterally is a normative form of action on the international stage. The Trump Administration demonstrates three: 1. Disregards international law. 2. Demonstrates that they are tone deaf of the concerns of global allies. 3. Ignores international law regarding war upheld by the governing body of the United Nations (UN).
More troubling, Trump’s offensive maneuvering establishes on a world stage that this form of offensive realism can be adopted by other nation-state actors. In short, employing shotgun diplomacy provides a golden ticket to rogue state actors, leading to the undermining of the legitimacy of international democratic rules of law.
What is more, U.S. actions could force China to revise its Belt and Road Initiative approach from soft power to a harder approach, potentially arming opposition forces in the South American countries of Guyana, Brazil, Suriname, and Venezuela, leading to ongoing ideological and armed conflicts in the region.
Casualties of war: elections, oil and . To achieve regime change in Venezuela, a boots-on-the-ground approach is the only viable strategy to sustain long-lasting, sustainable change in the country. This could lead to the potential loss of American troops and civilians in the country, placing a strain on the U.S economy by divesting tax dollars that can be used to rebuild a failing U.S. economy reeling from the impacts of import tariffs.
On the other hand, domestically, a long-term conflict in Venezuela could provide the Trump Administration’s allies an opportunity to profit from any future oil wealth that will certainly emerge. Historically, war for a president often garners public sympathy or unfettered patriotism, making lame-duck Pres. Trump, a wartime hero during a midterm election year.
In the final analysis, a protracted conflict in Venezuela could expand to other countries, leading to the displacement of people, creating a refugee problem for the U.S and the region, affecting economic prosperity from trade in the region, creating economic uncertainty in the U.S., expediting economic recession in the U.S., and at the same time weakening the U.S role on the international stage.
This form of dispute has led to the reemergence of the big stick policy—foreign policy strategy of President Theodore Roosevelt emphasizing peaceful negotiations, all the while, subtly threatening military force. It also earmarks an offensive realist foreign policy, in other words, using aggression and postulations of being an unstoppable power, to outmaneuver rivals. In the end, the Trump Administration has set a global precedent for us to prepare for a new normal of war.
