The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / A question regarding one of the charges against Maduro

A question regarding one of the charges against Maduro

by 113 Comments

Of course there are a great many aspects that raise questions, but let’s start this one.

He is charged with possessing machine guns. Presumably they were in his possession in Venezuela. How could this possibly an indictable offence in another country?

1

Comments

        • That’s just a cheap cop out. Why is Starmer at fault ? He could have come out in favour of it and it would have made no difference. He could have come out against it and it would have made no difference.
          He chose to sit on the fence which is exactly in the country’s interest.
          As a resident of France not really sure why your opinion is valid or of interest to anyone in the UK.

          • Oh god, do I have I go through this again? Are you Bargepole in disguise? I’m British by birth and have every effing right to comment from afar (approx 900 miles) on all things British.
            IMHO Starmer should have stood up and said “You can’t invade another country and kidnap its (admittedly awful) President”. That’s my Humble Opinion

            • Just a wondering – as a resident of the UK what gives you the right to , for instance, discuss the merits of Bruce Springsteen or, say, Bob Marley neither of whom to the best of my knowledge actually own or owned a British passport?

              • Bob Marley’s father was of Welsh ancestry. He might have got a British passport if he’d applied for one. He regarded London as his second home, recording Catch A Fire in 1972/3 and taking refuge after his shooting in 1977.

              • Now you are just being silly. We do not know what the Starmer response is to Trump because neither you nor I nor anyone else is aware of discussions that Starmer has had with Trump or his administration. Why does everything have to be played out in public? The Uk is arguably the USA’s closest ally and our relationship is more mature than hysterical outbursts to the press. We have had differences of opinion throughout history ie. Grenada and Suez to name two. The Prime Minister of the day (any PM) has a duty of care to protect our interests. I think Starmer has acted with caution in public, we do not know what has been said in private.

                • I have absolutely no problem with you and me disagreeing about Starmer & Trump – your opinion is just as valid as mine.
                  What I do have a big problem with is you saying because I live in France I have no right to comment on what the UK PM should be or shoul;d not be saying: now that’s “being silly”

                  • It’s a moot point I guess. As far as I know the British population have not been affected by Venezuelan drugs in the same way that the US population has. If there is a powerful argument that the Venezuelan government is aiding smuggling into the US which is causing great harm to the US economy and countless premature deaths then any US government is entitled to address the situation. It doesn’t have anything to do with Starmer or any EU government so any comments made are opinions.
                    In such instances it is better to keep your opinions to yourself.
                    We need Trump to be on our side with the EU against Russia. There is also the small matter of our economy. I think Starmer was right to be prudent in this instance and not to upset the apple cart. Doesn’t mean he agrees with the actions taken.

              • In answer to Lodestone yes you have the same right as Brit’s living in this country to comment on Starmer. As someone who chooses to live elsewhere means quite possibly people in UK will take less notice of your opinion. Which feeds into the wider argument – Americans are not really going to take much notice to what the Brits think about Trump.
                Israelis by and large are not going to pay much attention to any external criticism about Netanyahu.

                • Not sure my complaint re what you said re me and my eligibility to discuss matters British has been answered. Turning that round into a discussion about what influence the UK has anymore on the global stage is simply disingenuous.

                  • Okay if you want me to be explicit here goes. For whatever reason you chose to live in France. Good luck to you, you were fortunate enough to be able to do it before the choice was taken away from you. However since you no longer pay tax in the UK or earn a living in the UK then I think at the very least your opinion of the British government of the day is less relevant than that of people who have to endure the policies of their elected government . In a previous life I was an expat myself and saw the way expats would espouse their views on the country they had left. It is peculiar to say the least.
                    Of course there is some hypocracy involved in this because I frequently rant about Trump. However I would contest that Trumps actions affect the whole of the World whereas not many people give a fuck about Starmer away from these shores

                    • As an expat, I think you’re right when you say “your opinion of the British government of the day is less relevant than that of people who have to endure the policies of their elected government”, but by the same token I also find the opinion of expats more relevant than the opinion of my fellow Italians who have never lived in Britain. Yet despite that, Italians still discuss British politics and Starmer crops up very regularly in the Italian newspapers. And that’s a good thing, surely?
                      (Personally I’m still furious about Brexit, which made a massive difference to me even as an expat.)

                  • We should focus far more on the quality of opinions and far less on from whom they emanate (with an exception where the latter speaks to the former).

                    You can live in the UK and be woefully uninformed and ignorant regarding local affairs. You can live aboard and be completely engaged and full of useful insight.

                    I want to hear views from intelligent people no matter where they live, and that’s the reason Lodestone should post less (joke!).

        • Starmer is not alone – pretty much all European leaders have sat in the fence so far (or, like Meloni have actively supported Trump’s actions). I guess given Trump’s unpredictability they have to be cautious not to derail either their own country’s interests or those of Ukraine. But it’s a dangerous game. If he can take this kind of outrageous action unchecked what’s next – Greenland?

          • As I said, albeit rather flippantly, what are they going to do ? Impose sanctions ? I doubt it. Take military action ? That wouldnt even happen if Trump took Greenland. Which leaves a choice between shouting the odds or doing what you can behind the scenes. That’s the difference between Corbyn and , for all his many faults, Starmer.

          • @Gary completely agree with your comments. Brexit still makes me extremely angry too not least because it has effectively stopped any opportunity I may have had to live elsewhere. Also my daughter at the age of 16 was not allowed to vote in the referendum whereas if she lived in Scotland she would have been allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum. Complete bullshit. My son on the other hand managed to get out.

            • My “whatever reason” for moving to France was death of youngest son, painful divorce and the opportunity to start a new life in a new country (having a European job nominally based in Paris kinda helped). We had no long-term plans, talked of moving to Spain, Italy or Ireland. Then Brexit. Neither of us want French nationality so we have long-term residency cards. We pay all our taxes in France (although all our income is UK pension based). We have many French friends, Mrs W speaks excellent French, I get by unless being shouted at by some petty and bored official or trying to decipher what our neighbour is saying in that confusing patois of Catalan and Occitan. We watch French news and read the local paper every day but I awake to Radio 4 every morning, watch UK news every evening, read The Guardian, Times and Independent every day (thank you internet) and exclusively watch UK & American TV programmes (ever tried watching French telly, it’s generally awful). Accordingly and not without a little shame, I therefore know and understand far more about Starmer’s Britain than Macron’s France. That’s how it is, no apologies – that’s how it is. It’s 90% certain that one day we will return to the UK (Hi, Nigel, whatever happened to the NHS?) but until then I maintain I have as much right as Steve T (or even Gary) to comment here on British politics. Rant over, no more on this from me

              • I’m surprised you envisage a return to Britain. I don’t. I don’t think I could afford to and even if I could, I’m far too set in my ways. Plus they don’t have bidets.

                • Every time we go back (aged parents, son, grandkids, old pals) we think isn’t it nice to understand everything going on, this pub is nice etc but then grey weather, crowded roads, bloody Union Jacks everywhere make us think maybe we’ll just stay put

                  • I was back in the UK over Christmas, after several visits in 2025 – it’s an hour away by plane, 2 with links from door to door. With my mother rather elderly, this is an increasing occurrence.

                    Pre-Brexit, I did not really see there being much difference between Bonn and Worcester, the town where I was born – pleasant market towns on (relatively) major rivers with similar weather. Bonn is closer to my mother’s house than that is to the Scottish border. I see myself as a northern European.

                    Brexit put the kibosh on that semi-continental identity to an extent, but after 10 years, it now feels like only additional red tape – culturally the connections are still there.

                    The UK was home for many periods of my life and it probably will be again. In some ways, it still is. People have multiple allegiances (we contain multitudes as is often said) – there are enough people who claim ethnoterritory – I say: let’s celebrate diversity.

                • I have only lived in the UK for 3 of the last 28 years. However I visit once or twice a year. When I lived in Switzerland I was home on at least a monthly basis (my mother wasn’t well). Leave work at 3pm on a Friday, fly to Heathrow, then rent a car to drive to South Wales, then the other direction on the Sunday or Monday.

                  I too think I could move back, just about to renew my UK passport, a lot depends on my daughter, but I can also envisage a split year spending winters there and rest of the year in Canada. I think as one gets older there is an attraction to “going home”

                  I haven’t voted in a UK election since 97. Was against Brexit but didn’t (couldn’t?) vote. Am more interested in Canadian politics these days especially with threats being sent in our direction from the US. I do have some interest in UK politics, I have kept up my National Insurance payments and the main part of my state pension will come from there, I also have family there so some interest in UK politics is necessary

                  How come all you non Americans feel you can comment about Trump when you don’t live there? 😉

    • That half-wit cnut has an crap action movie model of life, and has never faced a real consequence for his BS, and in fact has thrived on it. That he has not been pulled down by reality or reason has convinced him neither are required – and who could say he’s wrong, at least from where he sees it? I see a return of the strong-man model of leadership as everywhere that doesn’t follow this approach decides to join Russia, China, Israel and the USA, who seem to get away with it. Thank goodness I am soon 65, and have lived through kinder (though they didn’t always seem to be) times.

  5. It’s all about the “petrodollar” isn’t it ?

    My (admittedly basic) understanding of geopolitics is that back in the day Henry Kissinger did a deal with the Saudi’s that meant all oil sales were in USD – basically giving the US a licence to print money as everyone needed it to buy oil. Now along comes Venezuela with bigger reserves than Saudi and they have the gall to sell it in Yuan (the Chinese currency)……..

  6. I don’t think anyone will mourn the end of the Maduro regime – the last election was clearly rigged and the country will be better off without him.
    Having said that I do not condone unilateral military action which is reckless and emboldens other nations to achieve their territorial aims the same way.
    If China decides to now invade Taiwan any argument from the USA would lack any moral authority.
    We live in dangerous times

    • Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump are just dividing the world up between themselves. So which way does Europe go if it’s not strong enough to stand up to any of these alone? Maybe that peace dividend should have been reinvested into European militaries to ensure we could protect our peace, rather than assume the Americans would come in on our side.

      • Which is sort of the point that Trump has been making in his clumsy and provocative fashion. The realitynis that whilst Europe might still be able to collectively resist Russia, it’s now a bit part player when It comes to the machinations of China and the USA

      • The EU is more than strong enough to stand up to Russia, four times the population, stronger conventional forces. Don’t believe that Putin is rrally that stupid Nor do I believe Trump is going to decouple from NATO. He has bases all over Europe and the UK is often regarded as his aircraft carrier in Europe He is not going to let Russia gain the upper hand in Europe.

  8. Iraq was being run like a private fiefdom by a nutcase sociopath, and the USA rode in to make everything all right again. And here we are again. Wait for the vacuum to fill with lots of cuddly democratic liberals who of course have no thought at all for their own enrichment and can’t wait to help make Venezuela a land of happiness and tranquility. Meanwhile plenty of drugstore truck driving men and women will wave a stars and stripes and unquestioningly praise the orange bastard and his vile cronies. Back in the 70s I remember reading being outraged by the extent of the interventions and skullduggery carried out by the USA. Real politic, they said, to this freak flag flyer. Smell the coffee (Nicaraguan) they said. Plus ca change. Happy New Year? We’re off to a flying start.

  11. This is my point about his legal action against the BBC. An American court has no power to order anything or subpoena anyone so surely the BBC can just ignore it? The only way this action can be successful is if he removes the UK Primeminister by force and then the USA assumes control of the UK. I know, I know….ridiculous!

    • The BBC has extensive commercial interests in the USA. Simply ignoring any action might be counterproductive. Similarly, Trump might pursue a liblel case through the UK courts, as many foreign nationals have done in the past, UK libel laws being more stringent than those in the USA.

      • Really? As in I don’t know, but isn’t Trump’s beef with the Beeb around how they allowed the words he said to be “misinterpreted”. As in he said all those words, if not contiguously. Does that count as libel, unless they made comment upon them and in the order they played them?

            • No worries!

              In my professional opinion; yes they did.

              The edit takes Trump’s incitement to violence from being largely subtextual and debatable to almost entirely explicit and inarguable.

              It tips the speech over from being possessed of some degree of plausible deniability to outright and obvious criminality. I would expect any halfway competent barrister to win that part of the argument with ease.

              There are a number of other defences the BBC might run (if the claim weren’t time barred in the UK), but I wouldn’t expect them to get very far in a courtroom if the plan was to suggest the edit hadn’t materially changed the speech’s content. Not least because the BBC has already – rightly – conceded this point in their apology.

      • Trump cannot bring his case in the UK, where it could indeed have been more successful, because the allowable time to do so has expired.

        2 years is the maximum allowable time between the offence and taking action over it in UK law.

        Damages awarded for libel have also historically been much lower in the UK than in the USA.
        And court costs are not always awarded against the loser of civil cases in the UK. Sometimes both sides have to pay their own.

  12. What the Americans have done in Venezuela is obviously awful, but I don’t believe it’s quite as novel as is being presented.

    We in the West talk with concern about countries establishing “spheres of influence”, but the US has been manipulating and strong-arming Latin America with very little respite for nearly 300 years now. If any sphere of influence can be said to exist on the planet, this is it.

    If you spend time in some of these countries you’ll recognise their innate frustration at having their development constantly hampered, stymied and rerouted by a greater force. Sometimes that takes the shape of odious dictators being removed. At others odious dictators being installed. Or maybe just the IMF marching in and dictating economic terms.

    Regardless, the end result is the same: a continent is robbed of its natural resources and cast into a perpetual stunted adolescence, all the better to ensure the security and prosperity of its Northern neighbour. Eduardo Galeano put it best; “Bolivians die with rotted lungs so the world can enjoy cheap tin”. This is ultimately just more of the same, albeit with the subtleties sanded down.

  13. What is noticeable is that few people have any practical suggestions as to what shoukd be done, either in response to what’s happened in Venezuala or the latest threats to Greenland. Zarah Sultana, Richard Burgon and others export us to ‘resist’, without actually saying what that might involve, let alone the consequences thereof. This is echoed on social media and in the online comments thread of the papers that still allow comments.

    These are full of people saying, understandably, that we shoukd ‘stand up’ to Trump. But again, few, if any suggest what we might do. The handful of specific suggestions include a suggestion of military intervention to protect Greenland. Quite how this might be achieved outside of NATO is a moot point. And quite what service personnel would make of the prospect is another matter. Others have suggested trade sanctions ,although quite how much appetite there would be for those in the wake of any worldwide economic slump must be open to doubt.

    Meanwhile, in Scotland, I see that the SNP, never usually shy of a bit of grandstanding, aren’t proposing a World Cup boycott. Far from it. The proposal is actually for a bank holiday to mark fht first match. Against that backdrop, for all the shouting, one can’t help wondering whether people are prepared to sacrifice much, if anything.

    Perhaps someone in the AW has some interesting and practical suggestions.

    • Globally, I have no idea of what to do. Personally, I’ve avoided buying American goods for a while now, along with not using BP for fuel or anything else, due to their pulling out of green energy because it was affecting their bottom line. I’m aware that talking about morals with oil companies is ridiculous but them being so brazen about it really pissed me off.
      I’m sure BP and Trump are hugely concerned about my refusing to do business with them.🙄

      • I won’t knowingly buy any American goods. In Ontario all US booze was removed from the shelves months ago. Otherwise I mainly need to be sure that produce comes from Canada or Mexico. However I still have US streaming services and am typing this on an American phone, albeit one that I got for free

        And I don’t plan to visit that godforsaken country while he remains president. That is something most can easily achieve. I used to go 3 or 4 times a year

      • In my grocery shopping, I haven’t knowingly bought any US brands or US owned brands for almost a year now. My small protest. I’m sure I’ve rattled the Dow Jones. Still buying music by US performers, but I want to think most of those would share my opinion of the current executive. Most music buying from independent Irish and UK retailers. Streamers are a thornier issue. I kept them for the festive season but I might just have to bite the bullet and live without them.

    • The government should send the SAS into his two golf courses in Scotland and arrest the manager’s of each on charges of possessing machine guns to kill the local rabbits and supplying cough medicine to kids. They should then state that they will take over the running of the courses until they can do a safe, proper and judicious transition to someone that doesn’t cheat at golf.

      Other than that, all I can think of is starting a petition on the AW – that’ll learn him.

    • I think we all know by now that almost nobody is willing to boycott the World Cup. The organisers know it too, hence their behaviour.

      Can we maybe find a way of resisting that doesn’t actually inconvenience anyone?

    • When has the USA taking over the running of a country ever gone to plan? Even when there was a plan.

      I’m not sure The Don has ever read a history book. I’m not sure he’s ever read any book, including The Art of the Deal or whatever “he” wrote.

    • I think the Greenland situation has been hyped by the media who seem hellbent on causing an International crisis to boost their dwindling circulation.
      The population of Greenland is less than that of Redditch. The problem is that it is rich in natural resources which are coveted by the Superpowers and many smaller nations including the UK. Russia and China have quite publicly stated their interest in the area and their intention to impose their own claims on the region. The EU will actually benefit from USA increased involvement although it has been stated in a very clumsy way. I suggest there is no chance of a military invasion and every chance of an agreement between Denmark/Greenland/USA on a joint ownership deal. Sure Denmark would prefer US involvement than allowing China to just walk in unopposed.

  14. There is indeed virtually nothing that Starmer or the AfterWord can do that will damage Trump or make him change his “mind”. But at some point surely the likes of the UK government has to stand up and be counted
    “I’m sorry Donald but what you did in Venezuela was Wrong.” Won’t change a thing right now but maybe, just maybe, if enough other countries join in then in the future he might, just might, think twice

  15. What should be happening is moves to expel the USA from NATO and a demand for the closure of all US military bases in the rest of NATO. Or perhaps the dissolution of NATO and it’s replacement with a purely European and Canadian defence alliance.
    I’m not holding my breath.

    • Me neither. I suspect everyone is waiting for the mid-terms before any significant huff manifests. Waiting to see if they happen, and if they do will MAGA end up hog-tied or not.

      In the meantime Trump might cark it.

      Once again the planet waits for America to shift before the rest respond.

    • That is a bonkers idea. NATO without the USA is a much weaker deterrence to Russia and China. That would be an unbelievably generous gift to Rasputin.

  16. Impotent rage is exactly what he wants. “Owning the Libs” is raw meat to his base. The best thing to do with people like him is completely ignore him. I’d like to see Starmer maintain professional relations but knock off the flattery. Rushing into Kings Visits and things can easily be slow walked past the mid terms after which he will have other things on his mind with a bit of luck.

    • I think this is the wisest course of action. If we recall playground bullies, the best thing to do is stay out their way. The one thing they can’t do by force is make people like them, which drives these hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned people mad.

      One way or another, they don’t tend to hang around long term. It’ll be self-inflicted actions that cause their undoing.

      On that, I see the European leaders have issued a joint statement, telling Trump to leave Greenland alone. If he annexes Greenland, that’s an act against a NATO nation and will effectively end the USA’s involvement in NATO. Perhaps that’s the plan all along – provoke expulsion because MAGA’s heart isn’t in NATO anyway.

      However, Europe cannot and should not attempt to take military action against the US. The UN and the EU will simply refuse to acknowledge the annexation and wait until Trump has gone.

      If they invade Greenland – it’s an unprovoked attack on Denmark.

      A subsequent withdrawal by every European nation from the FIFA World Cup tournament will render it meaningless. Other countries would probably withdraw too, particularly the co-hosts, Canada and Mexico. FIFA would no doubt sue the US for trillions.

      All of this can be avoided by leaving Greenland alone.

  17. Meanwhile, I have been looking to see if I could find anything cogent written by someone who wasn’t grandstanding and/or seemed to have some notion as to what they were talking about. Former Labour MP Graham Jones, was once Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Venezuela. This is what he had to say on Facebook earlier in the week.

    “I appeared on the news yesterday to talk about Venezuela. It’s not a country that directly affects the UK, but it is one where people have suffered for years.
    I was, bizarrely, asked to chair the Parliamentary Committee on this far-flung place, so I know a great deal about it. That experience often left me despairing at the poor quality of our politicians and media coverage.
    I met hundreds of Venezuelans. Many of them also despaired at outside voices pursuing international ideals while conveniently forgetting the plight of ordinary Venezuelans, who have been pleading for help for years.
    From an observer’s point of view, this is how it looks to me.
    It appears Trump has struck some kind of deal for a bloodless transition. It also appears that members of Maduro’s government have betrayed him for their own ends—financial and criminal—under unrelenting US pressure.
    We are told the CIA have been in Caracas since August; that they accessed the presidential palace with ease; and that Maduro was taken without resistance. We are told the Venezuelan air defences, supplied by Moscow, were switched off as a swathe of Chinooks carrying 200 Delta Force personnel flew in.
    CORRECTION. We now know a little more detail. 38 Cubans died defending Maduro. It appears the US jammed/or circumvented some defence systems.
    Trump’s speeches are littered with hyperbole and nonsense, and it’s difficult to pick the bones out of his comments. But two points caught my attention.
    First, he said a second US wave wouldn’t be necessary—subtext: the regime remnants have conceded. Second, he implied the US would govern during a transition, which is worrying. Subtext: remnants of Maduro’s system want assurance that the opposition won’t take over immediately and come after them for their crimes and profiteering.
    Trump also described the opposition leader, Maria Machado, as a “nice woman” but “not capable”. Subtext: he isn’t picking sides. The read-through is that there is a guarantee to Delcy Rodriguez. In effect, he is telling both sides they will have to accept something uncomfortable for a while.
    I’m not sure Trump was comfortable saying America was going to “run” the country. His body language looked flaky—like this is ugly, but necessary.
    ADDITION: it appears Rubio has a senior if not lead role in this action.
    There are back-channel reports that the US initially wanted the opposition to take over. But after long conversations, the US may have concluded the opposition is divided and not yet capable of managing a transition—especially if the armed forces remain loyal to the old regime and the country risks sliding into civil conflict.
    Rubio indicated a pragmatic, reluctant conclusion—probably informed by the mistakes of Iraq, where the Ba’ath Party was dismissed and the state became ungovernable—would not be repeated in Venezuela. He said as much. US thinking seems more detailed than some commentary suggests.
    It appears a lot of thought has gone into US plans, but the plan pivots on whether the regime remnants “play ball”, and that likely includes uncomfortable guarantees. Trump made an interesting point: a bloodless transition is better than a bloody one. That may be the centre of his decision—but it may also produce ugly, unacceptable, and negative outcomes.
    Legally, the issue is simpler than many commentators suggest. The West—including the United Kingdom—recognises the opposition as the legitimate authority, and they have welcomed the US action. If the recognised sovereign authority is not making the case to trigger UN Article 51, then there is no case for illegality on that basis.
    ADDITION: it appears sovereignty is key in Maduro’s arrest. That the lack of removes immunity.
    There are rival opinions supporting Maduro’s claim that he is the sovereign leader; the corollary is that this was an illegal invasion. You can pick your side on who speaks for the nation. But from a legal point of view, the recognised Venezuelan authority has welcomed the action, describing it as liberation. This also affects who speaks for Venezuela at the UN: two different speeches, two different approaches—one that supports legality, one that argues illegality.
    The UK’s legal position since Maduro stole the 2017 election is that the opposition is the legitimate authority. On that view, it is for them to decide whether they were invaded or assisted.
    Many commentators mix up the law as they want it to be with the law as it is. My position is aligned with the UK’s stated position: the legitimate opposition is sovereign, and given they won 80/20 in an election that Maduro refused to recognise after losing, it is their view we accept.
    Maria Machado was given the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway recently, with every Liberal Democrat wanting a selfie in support. We should not retreat from that support.
    There are moral issues too—but there’s more to it.
    Maduro held a referendum in 2023 on taking over neighbouring Guyana. The Maduro regime is not in a strong position to lecture on illegal “big brother” interventions.
    And given the West believes the opposition won the elections of 2017 and 2024, it is difficult to argue this is “regime change” in the usual sense. The opposition won and should take rightful office.
    Maduro is being investigated for serious alleged crimes by the ICC, and Delcy Rodriguez may be mindful not just of US power, but of international courts too. That may be one explanation for why they have thrown Maduro under the bus. I’m sure their own status—and what they are guilty of having done—is front and centre in their thinking.
    It also appears the “rules-based order” is fraying—if it ever existed. As I said on TV, there are wider ramifications we need to be mindful of: global threats.
    The US cannot be allowed to subsume the democratic process, the will of the Venezuelan people, or Venezuelan sovereignty. Nor can the US be given a green light to act unilaterally elsewhere—for example, Greenland.
    In the South China Sea, we must be absolutely clear about what American interventionism means, because we cannot equivocate it with Chinese military action in Taiwan. If we misunderstand Venezuela, we fall into the trap of false equivalence—and into Beijing’s hands.
    Then there is the thorny issue of Ukraine: whether the United States continues to supply arms and funding, the effect on the war’s outcome, and the risk of NATO fragmentation. One thing is clear: Europe has to get off US dependency and dramatically increase defence spending to backfill any potential US withdrawal from NATO or from collective allied action.
    Then there is Trump’s peace plan in Gaza, which trundles along.
    Yesterday, the most worried person was probably President Zelenskyy, who is desperately trying to keep the Western coalition—including the United States—intact. Any fragmentation over Venezuela could have serious implications for Ukraine and for Europe.
    We must not lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe: around 80% of Venezuelans live in poverty; roughly 60% are malnourished; inflation is around 178%; crime is out of control; and trafficking routes through Venezuela—including via ports and airports—have been significant, particularly toward places like Medellín and Honduras and other transit destinations.
    Waving placards does nothing to help Venezuelans, and they despair at the likes of Jeremy Corbyn.
    There is a parallel with Iraq—right or wrong: a US invasion, the Ba’ath Party kept in place rather than dismissed, and Saddam sent to the courts. Has the US learned lessons?
    For Europe, the red lines will rightly include: freezing out the opposition; any temporary US sovereignty over another nation; and, for some, the protection of regime figures from justice by the US.
    The UK has faced its own dilemmas on accountability for criminal political activity through the Good Friday Agreement. Difficult questions may lie ahead if Trump has struck this sort of deal.
    I can only presume the US is telling Delcy Rodriguez—who one minute pledged total allegiance to “the only president, Nicholas Maduro,” and later in the day was sworn in as Venezuela’s new president, albeit for a limited period—to go with the flow and accept it. And the same message to Maria Marchado, the opposition leader: go with the flow and accept it.
    Is this Trump’s best-case, bloodless option? We don’t know.
    But everything pivots on the actions of the remnants of the regime, and that is directly linked to their assessment of the risks of further US action—a “second wave”.
    It appears there have been many conversations in the background between all parties, excluding Maduro. That may explain why Maduro increasingly relied on Cuban advisers and Cuban security rather than Venezuelan forces. His grip was slipping.
    The American question to Delcy Rodriguez is simple: do you want your country to continue as an economic basket case? It’s a powerful emotional offer.
    Another major factor is oil. Venezuelan crude is heavy, low-grade sludge requiring enormous investment to process. Up to the 1990s—and before Chavez—major foreign companies had the infrastructure, capital, resources, and skills to keep pumping stations and refineries operating.
    During the Bolivarian revolution, when Hugo Chavez took power, he nationalised the industry, kicked the oil companies out, and took over their investment. That is the basis for Trump’s grievance.
    More importantly, over the following 30 years the Venezuelan regime has been unable to manufacture parts or manage production well enough to sustain the industry. Output has plummeted to a fraction of what it was. State seizure has been a catastrophe.
    Given Venezuela cannot currently support its own oil industry, it requires foreign expertise and investment. There is an argument for a proper framework to enable this. However, Trump’s “America First, no one else” posture is not exactly the sort of foreign investment approach that democratic countries can accept.
    At the moment there is an oil embargo, so no one is benefiting from Venezuelan oil. Opening it up depends on where companies sell it and whether it returns to open markets.
    Nicolas Maduro now looks like the fall guy for all sides. Trump’s decision to keep remnants of the regime in power—and effectively protect them with a piece of the pie—does not incentivise them to man the barricades for Maduro, regardless of the noise they make for domestic audiences and party apparatchiks.
    One issue that cannot be overlooked is the layered nature of the regime: police and defence structures. Army generals may have cut a deal through Rodriguez, or through an informal agent. But beneath them are criminal colectivos, gangs, and drug cartels that were given sanctuary so long as they defended the regime in the streets—plus the risk of rogue elements loyal to Maduro.
    The US may be trying to avoid repeating Iraq’s disaster by not dismantling the whole system overnight.
    Trump’s knock-down of Maria Riccardo may be the other side of the same coin. He cannot allow the opposition to surge and “scare the horses”—scare the remnants of the regime whom he calculates he needs for this transition.
    I’m sceptical. I’m not convinced Trump’s plan will work when you are dealing with people who have flagrantly disregarded laws and rights and do not respect their own people, solely for their own ends. It appears Trump has factored this in: the US has been on the ground for months, not just “pricing it in” but trying to smooth it out. It remains to be seen whether the plan works or fails.
    One of Venezuela’s problems is the people commenting on it. Many know little to nothing about it and quickly overlook ordinary Venezuelans in favour of global politics. There is very little value in what they say.
    There is also a danger that political posturing within Venezuela is misread: inward-facing noise gets amplified externally, and the international community turns Venezuela into a political football.
    If Delcy Rodriguez has done a deal, sticks to it, and can hold things together, and then—phase two—whoever wins elections can also hold things together, then Trump’s plan may work. But there are quite a few “ifs” in that sentence.
    Not notifying Europe is a big issue. Europe backs the opposition and will have serious concerns about democracy and a “dirty deal” with regime remnants. There has clearly been a coordinated response across Western capitals: they have not opposed the intervention for obvious reasons, and they have not stated it is illegal—probably the correct position, given they back the opposition as the sovereign authority. But with Ukraine in mind, they will have to be exceedingly diplomatic in pursuing any democratic agenda in Venezuela.
    The diaspora across Europe is absolutely delighted at the action taken by the US administration, and that adds another dimension—particularly in countries like Spain.
    Trump might pull this off, and I wouldn’t bet against him doing it. But it might be historic”

Leave a Reply