Skip to main content

Maduro and the wrong conclusions

 Today's problem is not Maduro. The illegitimate Venezuelan dictator is now out of the game. However, the legitimate government is not in the game either- at least not yet. An optimistic student of realpolitik might take the view that the Americans have learned from Iraq and are not making the mistake of destroying all the Chavista state, which they did with the Iraqi Baathist state after the fall of Saddam Hussein, before Venezuelan democracy can be restored. Since we regard the opposition as the legitimate authorities, and they have not complained about the arrest of Maduro, The US can legitimately say that their attack is not a breach of international law. Whether it is wise, and whether the US can take Venezuelan resources under their control are different questions, and are more bound up in the personality of Donald Trump. Smaller, weaker countries reach for the dubious comfort blanket of "international law" when they see their interests under threat, but in this case, international law is the rule of the victor, so "none dare call it treason". 

The Truth is that not many people really care about Venezuela, but people really DO care about Greenland. The United States attacking dictators in oil rich states has been par for the course for decades.  Attempting to take control over territory that is already in the hands of friendly allies is something new. Thus the backlash on Venezuela from NATO allies is stronger than it otherwise would be. smaller states are thinking about how international law applies to them, not as some abstraction. However, the removal of Maduro, even with the consent of the remaining Chavistas, is pretty much an unalloyed good, so the response from European NATO members has been more or less weak.

The potential for the long wished for regime change in Iran is now also looking like it is possible, and the US appears to be making similar plans for Tehran as for Caracas. Again European leaders will be placed in a difficult position: how could any democrat wish for the Mullahs to stay in charge in Iran?

Regime change in Venezuela or in Iran is mostly for the good. The pressure this places on Russia and even on Xi Jinping is also a positive. However the United States may be standing into danger.  Supposing Iran and Russia both see regime change, with or without US involvement. The reality is the wealthy Europeans have been confronted with the idea that the US is no longer an ally, and possibly not even a strategic partner, but actually a rival and a threat that cares nothing for their wishes or even deep interests. The direct threat to Denmark can not at this point be resisted, and the Americans are facing a weak Russia in the arctic.  The only challenger is the EU, and the US seems determined to destroy that challenger.  The European Union is like the Polish Lithuanian Rzczepospolita in the 18th century: a divided polity that can be corrupted or bribed into irrelevance, and the open contempt of the Trump regime towards its former allies has been a cold shower that will not be forgotten in any European capital, including London.

So, the battle is not about Maduro, Venezuela or even oil. It is a battle for the soul of the West. Ripping Greenland from European control will end the NATO alliance, in any form except nominal, and be a stinging humiliation for the Europeans.  Washington will not care.  However, few things in geopolitics are forever. If the Europeans integrate a beaten Russia, in the same way that they integrated a beaten Germany two generations ago, the United States may find that they have awoken a beast over which they have no control. Then, they may regret the contempt they have shown to their allies and to international law.  In a multi polar world all countries are small countries, its just that there are some that do not yet realize it yet. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...
1 comment
Read more

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more