Donald Trump has made a practice of lifting individuals off the streets and sending them to countries paid to take them in, reflecting a broader desire to sharply restrict immigration and redefine American citizenship. Last week, that approach produced a dramatic catch: Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.
In a twist, Maduro was helicoptered out of his country in handcuffs and flown to the United States to face criminal charges related to illegal drug activity. Whether a Salvadoran prison or a flight to a little-known country in Africa lies in his future remains unclear. That uncertainty is only one of many created by his capture, and it extends well beyond Maduro himself.
Americans have learned from Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq that nationalism is a powerful force. However intrusive a foreign intervention may be, however much it promises better things, and however impoverished a country might be, people tend to oppose outsiders. That dynamic is likely in Venezuela. U.S. pressure over oil production is already underway, and political direction is certain to follow. History suggests such interventions rarely proceed as planned.
Trump favors action that is clear-cut and free of nuance. He also expects swift, visible results. Those instincts may work in transactional settings, but they are poorly suited to a country that lost its leader – however corrupt and repressive – taken in the dark of night by another nation. Power vacuums do not remain empty for long, and they are seldom filled by reformers.
Venezuela’s corruption was not unilateral. Subordinate levels of government, close associates and the foot soldiers who carried out orders – including elements of the military – almost certainly benefited and were left in place. To varying degrees, they supported their lifestyles with proceeds from illegal drugs and anything else of value within reach. They will seek to continue doing so. Venezuelans, meanwhile, remain shut out of an honest economy.
In the best of times, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves could support a functioning economy. Few countries possess such potential. But these are not the best of times. Global oil prices remain low, with little expectation of a meaningful increase. That reality discourages foreign companies – likely American – from investing the enormous sums needed to rebuild Venezuela’s oil extraction infrastructure to anything close to its capacity.
If Trump’s interest centers on Venezuela’s oil, corporate economics may require federal subsidies to make that rebuilding viable. Yet he has already shown a willingness to blur traditional lines. He inserted the U.S. government into Intel’s operations, took a priority role in U.S. Steel’s affairs and demanded a share of proceeds from NVIDIA’s chip sales to China. A Chevron-U.S. partnership would follow that pattern. Whether traditional, keep-the-government-out Republicans will accept another such departure is uncertain.
Venezuelans deserved to be free of Maduro. They voted heavily against him in the most recent election. His corruption, cruelty and economic favoritism were well known and unchanged, driving millions to flee the country in search of survival and dignity. Removing him was not the hard part. What follows is.
Forcibly unseating a leader and attempting to manage a country from afar carries serious risk. Too many outcomes threaten Venezuelans, Americans and an already destabilized international order. American military forces again proved highly capable, and the extraction itself was precise and efficient. That may ultimately prove to be the easiest part of the United States’ new relationship with Venezuela.
