A new interventionism

Back in 2016, my impression was that Donald Trump appealed to those Republicans or conservatives who had tired of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Despite some early acquiescence, Trump had come around to the view that the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake. He appeared to view military intervention for the purpose of regime change or democracy promotion with a healthy skepticism. Now, however, his administration threatens some form of military intervention against the government of Venezuela, still recognized as legitimate by much of the world despite the claim of the nation's opposition leader that President Maduro no longer has any legitimacy.  The situation has remained largely the same since this blog last took note of it, though over the last weekend Maduro's supporters escalated tensions by taking violent action to prevent aid shipments from entering from neighboring but hostile countries like Colombia and Brazil. Secretary of State Pompeo now openly threatens Maduro, while the likes of Senator Rubio hint that Maduro will meet the same fate as Khadafi in Libya. For all that, Venezuela seems no more "evil" than Iraq in 2003, so why should Trump be eager to topple its government.

One reason noted before is that Venezuela is important in the cold war over oil prices that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continue to wage against Russia and Iran, whose governments support Maduro. Another reason, and possibly the decisive one, should have occurred to me before. Venezuela is the number one source of refugees in the western hemisphere. More than 3,000,000 people have fled Maduro's incompetent yet popular regime in recent years. Bordering countries feel the pressure the most, of course, but the so-called Bolivarian Diaspora is bound to head for the same ultimate destinations as refugees from other places have. It may have occurred to President Trump that if he doesn't want more Venezuelans on his own doorstep, his country and others that feel increasingly taxed by refugees might be obliged to fix problems that dysfunctional nations seem unable to solve on their own. This may or not what Trump is thinking, but it makes more sense than any explanation that focuses on Venezuela as a socialist state. Like many reactionaries, Trump is fond of pointing to Venezuela as proof of the inevitable fate of socialist governments, but that rhetoric is largely for domestic consumption and an antipathy toward socialism doesn't appear to color his dealings with the Marxist governments in North Korea and China. That may prove once again to some observers that any Marxist government had better get its hands on nuclear weapons, but I don't think that Trump has any desire to overthrow the other two states that has been deterred by their nuclear arsenals. It is said, as a criticism of Trump, that he has a sometimes inappropriate respect for strong leaders, and it's clear that he includes both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un in that category. He most likely doesn't see Nicolas Maduro that way. That doesn't necessarily mean that Trump feels free to bully the Venezuelan, but it may mean that in Trump's eyes Maduro's the sort of socialist who can't be trusted to run his own country without causing problems for others, even if he has no aggressive designs on them. A nascent Trump Doctrine may posit that under such circumstances neighboring nations and the nearest great powers have a responsibility to restore stability not in the name of any ideology but as an end unto itself. Trump and his diplomats may soon have a chance to articulate their position more thoroughly, but I have to wonder whether any explanation will make intervention in Venezuela justifiably different from the other interventions that soured many Americans on a bipartisan diplomatic-military establishment and led some of them to hope that a non-politician would be different.