Consequences of President Maduro’s removal

There are always consequences which result from significant actions in the international arena; more so in today’s world with seemingly ever-increasing conflict between and among states.

It’s logical, therefore, to expect consequences from the US stealth invasion of Venezuela and the removal from office of President Nicolas Maduro over the weekend.

The UN Charter generally prohibits forced intervention and removal of a country’s leader, upholding state sovereignty (Article 2(7)). And while there are provisions for the Security Council to discuss possibilities, “unilateral actions” are in violation of charter provisions, based on the “key principles of non-intervention in domestic matters (Article 2(7)), prohibition of the threat or use of force.”

The council is set to meet on the US intervention today. What can be the consequences?

One major consequence of the US invasion and taking out President Maduro is that it further weakens the UN system. Designed after WWII as a means of avoiding conflict and wars, “it (the invasion) sets a dangerous precedent,” according to Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

As history has shown, interventions have caused more conflict than planned for in several instances, among them Iraq, Chile, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel and elsewhere. Russia’s invasion and confiscation of Ukrainian territory is another current situation which continues to cause war and a threat to the territorial integrity of established states.

At home, one possible positive consequence of the US intervention is that T&T, supportive of the US effort against drugs, will feel entitled to being rewarded with a full OFAC licence for exploitation of the Dragon Gas. But what of the consequences of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s conflict with Delcy Rodriguez, who has become Venezuela President in Maduro’s absence? Will Rodriguez take instructions from Washington to allow for the Dragon Gas project to be proceeded with? And if she refuses, will the consequence lead to her removal by President Trump?

One seemingly assured consequence of the removal of Maduro is that the pressure will be off Guyana for a potential invasion of its Essequibo territory. But that territorial dispute goes back to the late 19th century; it’s, therefore, not likely to end soon.

Caricom is yet to come up with a definitive and collective position on the intervention by the US. One vital consequence of the imbroglio is the conflict driven between PM Persad-Bissessar and Caricom. Keeping in mind the reality of T&T’s US$1 billion trade benefit from its exports to the region, a resolution has to be found. Still, it’s far from being the first occasion of conflict amongst member states and the integration movement has proven resilient to such conflict.

For Venezuelans at home and abroad, including those in T&T, President Trump has projected happiness and prosperity as one consequence of the intervention and removal of President Maduro.

Up to this point, there have only been nice diplomatic but non-committal statements by Russia and China as a consequence of the removal of Maduro. If President Maduro expected that his eastern friends would intervene on his behalf as a consequence of the American invasion, he is surely the wiser for it today.

As to an assurance of T&T remaining safe and gaining economic benefits as a consequence of its support of the US, the experience ahead will be instructive.