Deposed Venezuelan leader, Nicolas Maduro, pleaded not guilty to federal drug trafficking charges on Monday in New York City. Maduro was making his first appearance in an American courtroom on the narco-terrorism charges the Trump administration used to justify his capture and being brought to New York.
WOSU’s Debbie Holmes spoke with Christopher McKnight Nichols, a history professor at Ohio State University, about U.S. foreign policy past and present.
Debbie Holmes: What was your reaction to the capture of the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro?
Christopher Nichols: I was surprised, though this had been signaled by the Trump administration, it seemed to many observers and specialists, like myself, that this wouldn't happen, that in fact there would not be an operation on Venezuelan soil, that that was some sort of rhetoric and not likely action.
Debbie Holmes: So, it was a bold move.
Christopher Nichols: (It was an) absolutely bold move, a historic move and a new change in U.S. foreign policy.
Debbie Holmes: President Trump says the U.S. will now oversee running Venezuela. How do you think this could play out?
Christopher Nichols: There doesn't appear to be much of a plan for running Venezuela in terms of which American individuals or locals on the ground would actually do the day-to-day governance. So, there's some real debate amongst experts about whether or not the U.S. will effectively run the government. But there's no doubt that the U.S. would be calling a lot of the shots based on what's happened so far.
Debbie Holmes: The vice president in Venezuela has been sworn in to be interim president and she's part of the old regime.
Christopher Nichols: Yes, so Delcy Rodriguez is the new interim president, the former vice president, and most of the Maduro regime is absolutely still in charge and in power. So, unlike what you might think superficially, the opposition is not in charge. And in fact, Donald Trump and the Trump administration has signaled that he doesn't think that the 2025 Nobel Prize winner Machado and her opposition party is ready to lead.
Debbie Holmes: How do you think this could all play out then and how will that change the interactions of Venezuela with other nations?
Christopher Nichols: You know, this is the big question here. It's unclear what the U.S.'s goal is if having taken Maduro out of power, the Maduro administration still effectively runs Venezuela. The longer-term consequences are relatively clear for now, which is that the U.S. has kind of let a cat out of the box in terms of global assertion of power and spheres of influence. This was in the National Security Strategy recently, and it signals to countries like China and Russia that it may be fine to assert power to even take out heads of state that they don't like in other countries based on domestic policy or other sorts of allegations against those leaders.
Debbie Holmes: President Trump has said the oil is one of the main reasons we're there and that oil companies will be going in to get it out of the ground and sell it. How complicated could that be and how expensive?
Christopher Nichols: It's absolutely complicated. There is very much concern in policy and economic circles about how American businesses would invest money and whether or not that would be a good investment, or whether or not the federal government should be part of that. And then there's a broader question of whether or not this is some sort of imperialistic oil grab. It's very hard in U.S. foreign policy circles to make the claim that the U.S. is doing things simply for natural resources and therefore it's suspect to do that. The bigger picture question here is will the U.S. federal government and multilateral, multinational organizations be able to extract oil and build oil infrastructure in a speedy timeframe?
Debbie Holmes: How do you compare this with other actions by the U.S. in the past? For example, when we took Manuel Noriega during the invasion of Panama.
Christopher Nichols: I think it will surprise listeners and American citizens to know that this is quite similar to the Manuel Noriega 1989 moment where the leader of Panama was pulled out by U.S. special forces and tried for his crimes as a drug trafficker in domestic criminal court in the U.S. Despite claims of sovereignty and sovereign immunity as a national leader, those were dismissed by U.S. domestic courts. Despite claims of how and why someone is brought to an American court, those are irrelevant in U.S. law and criminal law. And so, we're likely to see that happen with Maduro, which I think, again, will surprise many American citizens that those are not salient points in American criminal proceedings.
Debbie Holmes: Is this the start of a long-term strategy possibly leading to the invasion of Cuba?
Christopher Nichols: You know, that's a question that a lot of folks, especially across Latin America, are wondering. And this seems to signal to leaders across Central and South America, especially in Cuba, but also in Colombia, that the U.S. may be taking a more hardline role, a more interventionist role. I think you'll see a number of countries throughout Central and South America being on alert in terms of their militaries. I suspect their leaders will now be hunkering down more. And one of the challenges here is that even for Venezuelans in the U.S. who are absolutely celebrating the end of the Maduro regime, at least Maduro's leadership, they're skeptical that the U.S. is now taking this sort of assertive role. You know what Teddy Roosevelt would have called a world policeman or world constable when the U.S. used to intervene more often in the hemisphere.
Debbie Holmes: Why should somebody in Ohio, in particular rural Ohio, care about what's going on here?
Christopher Nichols: There's several factors here. One is that the U.S. is now taking a different stance in the world. This sort of interventionism, taking out world leaders, has happened in the past, but is relatively uncommon. And it certainly hasn't been commonplace since the end of the Cold War. So that's something that we should all be on alert for as American citizens. Is this the sort of thing the nation state should be doing, even against very bad world leaders? Because it sets a precedent. Another element here that I think people across Ohio will wonder about is does this sound a little bit like Iraq in 2003? Does this sound a little bit like well now the U.S. bears responsibility for the eventual outcome and the U.S. will be morally culpable, as well as culpable in terms of its actions, its international relations prestige for this.
