So far, we know too little about the situation regarding Venezuela after the Trump administration’s extraction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife for confident predictions, but there are already grounds for grave concern over the implications of the administration’s actions for the Western Hemisphere and globally.

We should begin by noting that not all exercises in regime change are equal. There are valid criticisms to be made of American actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq on prudential grounds, and in the latter case there is debate on their legality. But both were defensible to the degree they reflected legitimate goals: depriving terrorists of a sanctuary; ousting deeply repressive regimes; preventing a rogue actor from deploying weapons of mass destruction (though the fear rested on flawed intelligence); and advancing the strategic interests of the West broadly. There were in fact solid reasons to consider regime change in Venezuela at some point. The current regime has presided over economic ruin and the emergence of a totalitarian state, and forged alarming links with other autocracies that in time might have justified US action.

But the Trump administration relied on dubious charges that the regime was sponsoring “narco-terrorism” against US interests, and Trump’s demands include US access to Venezuelan oil reserves, which he falsely claims to have been unjustly denied. Regime change undertaken to restore democracy or avert an imminent threat is one thing, regime change designed to enrich those willing to show fealty to a deeply corrupt President is another, and Trump’s record is one of unremitting grift.

Trump made it clear he was acting in bad faith when he dismissed opposition leader Maria Corina Machado as not having the “support” and “respect” needed to govern Venezuela (unlikely given her........

© OpenCanada