In a recent interview, Professor John Bolton, former U.S Ambassador to the U.N and former National Security Advisor of the first Trump administration, stated that, according to the Monroe Doctrine, the American intervention in Venezuela is absolutely legal. Is Venezuela a direct threat to the security of the USA?
The Monroe Doctrine.
In 1823, President James Monroe, addressed a speech containing the most important pillar of the U.S foreign policy: America to the Americans. The Monroe Doctrine warned the Europeans great powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Basically, Monroe did not want to see any form of colonization in the American Continent or puppet monarchies backed by a European power.
After the famous Venezuela case in 1902, when Italian, German and British ships blockaded Venezuela’s ports due to government default, the Doctrine changed its meaning. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, with the so-called Roosevelt Corollary, justified Washington to intervene whenever the necessity comes up. At the end of 1800, the U.S emerged as the regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere and, according to T. Roosevelt, Washington has the responsibility to protect the other countries and preserve the order of the continent. Initially, the Monroe Doctrine aimed to keep the European powers out of Latin America, but since 1904 Washington is allowed to interfere in other countries’ affairs whenever instability threats the security of the hemisphere.
It is clear that the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary are in direct contrast to the U.N Charter when it claims that each country has its own sovereignty (Art. 2), because the regional hegemon imposes a hierarchical system in which the U.S might decide what is right or is wrong. Nevertheless, great power politics do not mind about international law, and whenever it is convenient to violate for the sake of their own business, they will certainly do so. This is a realist way of thinking of American foreign policy toward the Western Hemisphere, although Washington has not been a great supporter of realism in the last 30 years.
What John Bolton claims
John Bolton basically agrees with the intervention to extract Maduro, but it is not enough for the stability of the Western Hemisphere. According to him, Maduro is just the leader of a “gang” that is ruling Venezuela and nothing will change until the entire regime is toppled. It is wide known that John Bolton is a strong advocate of regime change as a foreign policy tool, especially in Venezuela, even though he considers himself as a realist. In fact, Bolton says that if Trump deals with “the acting President” Delcy Rodriguez, his administration will lose the legitimacy of its intervention. In other words, Bolton wants a regime change in Venezuela, considering Maduro’s gang as a threat to the security of the United States.
The Monroe Doctrine will lose its legitimacy if Trump deals whit Rodriguez. Moreover, Cuba depends on Venezuela’s oil, so he hopes that Cuban regime might fail too if Venezuela is ruled by the opposition. Furthermore, Maduro opened his country to China and Russia. They are acting against the American interest, and the control over the hemisphere is in jeopardy. According to Bolton, what the U.S has done in Venezuela has not to be compared to what is happening in Ukraine, because it was an unprovoked aggression toward a sovereign country.
To sum up, the American intervention is presented as legitimate due to the threat that Maduro posed to the United States, and Washington is acting in order to protect the true elected government in Venezuela, invoking the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.
Why Bolton is wrong
First of all, during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to stop endless wars in minor powers. Trumpcriticised the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the neoconservatives for wasting American resources in countries where no vital interest were at stake.
So, what is different in this case? Maduro was already in power during the first Trump administration and he did not attempt to overthrow him because the President is anything but interested in regime change. He acted aggressively against Maduro because his country has the largest reserves of oil in the world. The critics says that his behaviour is in line with an “America First” approach, especially if Maduro refused to cooperate with Washington.
Furthermore, as stated by Brad Setser, even if Trump starts to invest in Venezuela with all the American Oil Industry, future administrations will get the benefits of this operation. So, does it make sense to stay in Venezuela for a “Much Longer” time than a year, while U.S attention need to be in Europe, Asia, Middle East and in the Artic?
Secondly, the accusation that China and Russia are deeply involved in Venezuela is a very weak argument. Of course Beijing and Moscow had an affair in Venezuela supporting Maduro for the export of the oil, but the quantity of oil produced by Venezuela in 2024 was just 874.000 barrels per day, which represents about 1% of global oil production. Does it really shift the balance of power towards China and Russia? At the moment, it is unrealistic to think that Venezuela might be the gamechanger for China and Russia’s oil supplies.
John Bolton should remember that the USA has historically collaborated with authoritarian regimes when it suited its strategic interests. Humanitarian aid and support to the opposition can be seen as justifications to interfere in another country’s affairs. The reason why he did not favour the return of the Nobel prize winner, Machado, is because she lacks of sufficient support inside Venezuela to govern the country, especially within the armed forces. If Maduro, or Chavez, had opened Venezuela to American oil industry, neither Trump, nor any other president, would likely have tried to undermine Maduro’s regime.
In this case, Monroe Doctrine is not very relevant. Maduro did not pose a direct threat to the USA, and Trump captured him because he wants Venezuelan oil, something that the President has repeated on several occasions. On the contrary, if Venezuela had behaved as Cuba did in the early 1960s with the Soviet Union, Monroe Doctrine would indeed have been challenged by another great power of the system. In that case, Cuba not only strengthened its economic ties with Moscow, but allowed the Soviet regime to install nuclear missiles on the island pointed to the East Coast. Venezuela did not and does not have a comparable situation.
What Trump is doing can be interpreted as a form of old-fashioned imperialism, aimed at controlling another country and its natural resources to increase the export towards the U.S. The risk is that Trump might get bogged down in Venezuela in prolonged war, or quagmire, which is why he has to proceed cautiously.
