- Olivier Costa
- 5 janv.
- 6 min de lecture
The US intervention in Venezuela took experts and editorialists by surprise, once again revealing the media’s tendency toward Manichaeism when confronted with international crises. Between humanitarian justification and denunciation of a coup, positions clash reflexively. Yet this binary debate masks a far more complex reality. Rejecting simplifications does not mean excusing Maduro, nor absolving Trump. Above all, at a time when imperial logics are openly asserted, it is the role and responsibility of Europe that are directly called into question.
Donald Trump wrong-footed editorialists and television pundits in the days following New Year’s Eve. Just as fire safety specialists had replaced Brigitte Bardot’s biographers on TV panels, he ordered a show of force against the Venezuelan regime and had Nicolás Maduro and his wife placed in irons. This new episode makes it possible to cultivate the Manichaean vision of the world favoured by mass media. On Venezuela, as on Israel or Ukraine, positions are Pavlovian: few experts actually know the country or its domestic situation, yet two entrenched camps quickly emerge.
A Manichaean View of the Show of Force in Venezuela
On one side, mainly on the right of the political spectrum and among advocates of a realist approach to international relations, the American intervention is justified by reference to the humanitarian crisis. Venezuela is experiencing chronic shortages of food, medicines and basic services, and concrete solutions must be provided to a population that has suffered for too long from the damage caused by Chavismo. Supporters of a hard-line approach also argue that democracy must be restored: Nicolás Maduro failed to respect election results and has installed severe political repression and systematic human rights violations. The American intervention is also seen as a response to a regional migration crisis: the dictatorship has driven millions of Venezuelans into neighbouring countries, destabilising the entire region. The United States also accuses the country of serving as a platform for drug trafficking and corruption, and of allowing armed groups to flourish there; a local intervention was the only way to put an end to this. Finally, supporters of the American position argue that Venezuela destabilises the world order by selling off its oil at cut prices to authoritarian regimes (Russia, China, Iran).
In the other camp, the intervention is considered an unacceptable and unjustified violation of a state’s national sovereignty, carried out in the service of another country’s interests. The operation is in fact motivated solely by the country’s immense reserves of oil and minerals, and by the insatiable greed of American companies and consumers. It also carries a risk of military escalation: the conflict could degenerate into civil war or into an indirect confrontation with powers allied to Venezuela, increasing regional instability. Historical precedents are cited as evidence of failure: American interventions in Latin America (Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, etc.) and elsewhere in the world (Iraq, Libya, etc.) have left lasting scars, failed to restore democracy and exacerbated tensions within the societies concerned. In the US Congress, critics highlight the human and financial cost of the operation. Finally, more moderate analysts argue that domestic and diplomatic solutions were neglected, and that American military intervention weakens local initiatives and multilateral diplomatic bodies (the UN, regional mediation).
Doing Justice to Complexity
What should we make of all this? First, we must accept that a situation can be complex. While conservative editorialists emphasise Americans’ right to defend their interests against dictatorship and crime, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon demands the return of Nicolás Maduro to power, reasonable observers must embrace nuance. Thus, one can say that the photograph below depicts a Jaguar E-Type; that it is a sports car; that it is British; and that it is green.
All four statements are equally valid, and there is no reason to quarrel over them. One can also argue – if one assumes the subjective nature of such a judgement – that this apple-green colour does not suit the car, because it is not an original colour, that “British racing green” would be more appropriate, and that this shade makes the car look like a courgette. But one could just as well think it suits the car, because it is original and modern, and because there are already far too many black or grey Jaguars. Similarly, one enthusiast will claim that the E-Type is a very pleasant car to drive, with top-class performance and excellent road holding, while another will say it is unreliable, with poor braking and an incoherent driving position. One can argue either way, or have no firm view at all.
Likewise, with regard to Venezuela, one can accept that the following statements are all true and not contradictory: Nicolás Maduro is a bloodthirsty dictator; Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader seeking to divert Americans’ attention from domestic difficulties and scandals by launching a war; Americans are not motivated by the human rights situation in Venezuela; Donald Trump has demanded the bombing of eight countries within a single year and does not even deserve his FIFA chocolate medal; and part of the Venezuelan population is pleased by Maduro’s fall, after he ruined a once-prosperous country and subjugated its people.
Nuance Is Not Cowardice
Choosing nuance and respecting complexity do not necessarily imply fatalism or cowardice. Since the launch of the American operation in Venezuela, commentators have once again been quick to declare political Europe dead – given the cautious reactions of its leaders in Brussels and national capitals, their divisions, and their inability to express a clear position beyond appeals to the law. But because Europe, unlike other regimes, respects democracy and pluralism, one cannot consider that the lukewarm views expressed by Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas or Emmanuel Macron commit Europe’s 450 million citizens. Other voices are being heard, and Donald Trump’s show of force is a fresh injunction for the European Union to mobilise in defence of the international order inherited from the Second World War.
In a world where imperial appetites are expressed without shame, the European Union must be the voice of reason, respect for law, and international institutions. Law is not an end in itself; it is an instrument serving a political vision of the world – one based on the sovereignty of peoples and harmony between them. A world in which the law of the strongest cannot prevail, whether it be a dictator oppressing his population or a country invading its neighbour.
This viewpoint is not easy to express today, as Europe appears isolated on the international stage. But this is yet another trap of media rhetoric: the fact that a position appears to become a minority does not make it any less just or legitimate, because this is not a matter of numbers but of facts and analysis. The day leading opinion leaders proclaim that the Earth is flat, it will not stop being round. Donald Trump reasons in terms of imperial spheres of influence and openly considers that the United States must impose regimes and ideologies in Latin America that conform to his vision and his country’s interests. But if Europe accepts this, how will it explain that he cannot annex Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland? How can Russia be denied a return to Cold War borders? How can one oppose China’s right to make and unmake regimes in neighbouring countries – Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea?
The European Union Must Embrace and Promote Its Values
Today, the European Union must take the lead in defending the principles of international law, the sovereignty of peoples and states, and the primacy of international organisations in global affairs. To do so, it must speak with a strong and united voice – even at the risk of displeasing the White House or the Kremlin – and lead a broad coalition of countries committed to these principles: the United States’ historic allies (Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, European countries outside the EU), but also countries of the Global South, which have nothing to gain from the imposition of imperial logics from which they will sooner or later suffer.
If the Union fails to do so, it will be condemned to fade away – along with its 27 Member States, too small to be anything other than vassals of the major blocs. Unlike the United States, Russia or China, the European Union was built on respect for law and the rejection of power politics and imperialism. European integration was intended precisely to put an end to conflicts between nations and to move beyond the excesses of colonisation. By its very nature, it stands at the opposite end of the imperialistic and violent world promoted by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, and by their opinion relays in Europe.
Olivier Costa
P.S. I take this opportunity to recall this op-ed, co-signed with European political leaders and fellow specialists on the European Union, published just before the American operation in Venezuela. It appeared simultaneously in Le Monde, El País, La Repubblica, Le Soir and other newspapers. We argue that continuing European integration is no longer a simple option guided by ideological considerations or a particular worldview: it is the only possible response by our countries to the growing hostility of other blocs.
