Maduro, Venezuela and the Hegemons

By Olusegun Adeniyi

In a pre-recorded New Year’s Day interview aired on Venezuela State Television last Thursday, (then) President Nicholas Maduro pledged his preparedness for negotiations with the United States—though he expressed doubt as to the motives for the siege on his country. “What are they seeking? It is clear that they seek to impose themselves through threats, intimidation and force,” Maduro said before he added in a desperate tone devoid of his usual bravado: “The U.S. government knows, because we’ve told many of their spokespeople, that if they want to seriously discuss an agreement to combat drug trafficking, we’re ready. If they want oil, Venezuela is ready for U.S. investment, like with Chevron, whenever they want it, wherever they want it and however they want it.”

Two days later, President Donald Trump made his intention clear. In a military invasion that has alarmed the world, US forces conducted a predawn raid on the Venezuelan capital Caracas, dragging Maduro and his wife from their residence before putting them on a flight to New York where they were arraigned in court on Monday. The image of Maduro, a fearsome dictator, first in handcuffs and later in ankle chains, tells a compelling story on the ephemeral nature of power that is built on fear and repression and the turning tides of history. But more significantly, it also speaks to how the ‘rules-based international order’ has been effectively replaced with that of ‘might is right’.

Before I continue, it is important to stress that Maduro’s problem did not begin with the Trump administration. Nor is it only about Venezuela having the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Though Trump has certainly made clear in recent days how important petrodollars are to him. There are also geopolitical problems. Less than a year after Maduro assumed power following the death of his mentor, Hugo Chavez, on 9th March 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order declaring that “the situation in Venezuela … constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” In response, Maduro said in a national broadcast that “President Obama has personally decided to take on the task of defeating my government and intervening in Venezuela to control it.” He also paraded the seven officials who had been banned from entering the US, hailing them as “heroes” and naming one of them, Gustavo Gonzales, as his new interior minister.

But while the acrimonious relationship between the US and Venezuela predates Trump, he has taken it to an unprecedented level. Echoing the view by the United Nations, African Union and other international organisations, an Australian international relations analyst, Michael Shoebridge, said what happened to Maduro would have global implications. “Trump really has put meat on the bones of the words in his national security strategy, which said America was going to dominate the Western Hemisphere, and encouraged other major powers to exert more power in their own near neighbourhoods,” Shoebridge said. “Doing a military raid like this to abduct a foreign leader clearly breaks international law and it sets a very fresh precedent for any other country contemplating this kind of thing.”

With Maduro ousted by the Americans and given the manner they did it, three countries (Iran, Russia and China) may have lost their influence in Venezuela. But as Shoebridge also argued, China and Russia may now “feel licensed” to act in a similar way to the US in their own territorial conflicts. That does not bode well for the war-weary Ukraine where Russia is concerned and China could also “feel emboldened by what Trump has just done” on its ambition over Taiwan and its 24 million people. Those prospects become even more plausible with the Trump administration now discussing “a range of options”, including the use of military force, to acquire Greenland, a European semi-autonomous territory in Denmark that is paradoxically under the protection of the American-led NATO!

For sure, there are interesting days, weeks and months ahead as we witness a new global order that has little temperament for alliances. But what does it all mean for us in Nigeria?

The thrust of this piece is not to compare Venezuela with Nigeria, though there are several parallels to draw between the two countries, especially regarding what has been aptly described as the ‘Dutch Disease’. In his book, ‘The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations,’ Michael Lewin Ross explained how “the process that causes a boom in a country’s natural resource sector to produce a decline in its manufacturing and agricultural sectors” has impacted negatively on many countries, including Nigeria and Venezuela. This sudden oil wealth that fluctuates unpredictably, he argued, usually creates a rentier state in which the economy is dependent not on taxation but on “the income derived from the gift of nature.” The lack of transparency and accountability as well as bad leadership that follow are just consequences of this state of affairs.

That indeed has been the story of both Venezuela and Nigeria, although I must also concede that ideologically, the latter has adopted a free-market economy with all its contradictions while the former is a socialist state. But just like it happened in Venezuela, subsidies targeted on consumption in the critical sector blew up in our faces, especially when oil prices crashed rather dramatically. Both countries are also import-dependent. We are now rid of subsidies in the downstream sector of the petroleum industry and multiple exchange rates, but Nigeria is also borrowing heavily for recurrent expenditure, one of the problems that have plagued Venezuela for years. The greater problem for Venezuela, however, is having to contend with a powerful hegemon.

In a recent column, ‘Trumpland 2025: I Saw It Coming’, following the release of the US national security strategy, I referenced what Erik Solheim, a Norwegian diplomat who served as Minister for International Development and also Environment in his country as well as Under Secretary General of the United Nations and UNEP Executive Director, wrote on his X (formerly Twitter) handle: “Dominate the Americas, respect China, undermine Europe, ignore India, retreat from the Middle East, don’t give a damn for Africa. These are the true headlines of the new US National Security Strategy released this week.” That exactly is what is playing out in Venezuela regarding the Americas and it may not stop there. Last Sunday, US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, warned Cuba. “It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards,” he said. “This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live—and we’re not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors, and rivals of the United States.” And in Europe, the American annexation of Greenland is already loading.

For Nigerians who live on fantasy island on grounds of religion or for political reasons, they must come to terms with the reality that there is no salvation from Washington DC. The United States will always act in its own interest and those urging similar invasion of their country do not understand the nature of this game. I wonder where the Diasporan Iraqis who were egging President George Bush on in 1991 with ‘Operation Desert Storm’ are now. Or the Libyan opposition politicians who collaborated with President Obama to upend Muammar Ghaddafi. Besides, is it not instructive that in Venezuela, the US is now dealing with the same Maduro regime by allowing Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume power? That essentially is because such a transition better serves American interests—at least for now.

All said, the situation in Venezuela continues to unfold and nobody is sure how things will eventually pan out. Not even the US can predict what happens in the weeks and months ahead in that country. But what the fall of Maduro teaches is the fragility of political power, especially for leaders who believe in the myth of their own invincibility. Beyond that, it is now also clear that territorial integrity is an illusion in an age when regional powers believe impunity is the name of the game and their leaders can act without scruples or restraint.

Tambuwal @ 60

When I arrived in Abuja in June 2007 to assume office as presidential spokesman, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal was one of the few politicians with whom I struck a meaningful friendship. He was at that period the Deputy Majority Whip in the House of Representatives. Although he would later become the House Speaker and then Governor of Sokoto State, our friendship has endured. In Nigeria’s often turbulent politics, Tambuwal has fought and won numerous battles since he emerged on the national scene two decades ago. In these battles, he has not only had his mettle tested but has also proved himself. His politics of bridge-building across artificial divides and impressive leadership style have opened doors that would ordinarily be shut against others. As he turns 60 on Saturday, I can only wish Tambuwal long life and good health.