Annoyed with the Actions of a Sovereign Country?

then just kidnap their leader . . .

Economist David Zetland presenting a way to solve economic and political problematic issues . . . kidnap the country’s president.

David Zetland

The one-handed economist

Plot: Twist: Kidnapping a president

So Trump and his fellow-geniuses appear to think they’ve “hacked” the dilemma of diplomacy: If you’re annoyed with the actions of a sovereign country, then just kidnap their leader and claim that you can now run the country. This “logic” may have worked when absolute monarchs owned countries as a personal possession (e.g., King Leopold of Belgium with Congo), but it doesn’t when there’s a constitution — even one that’s been so abused (by Chavez and then Maduro) as Venezuela’s.

But Cheeto in VZ is even more stupid than Bush Jr. in Iraq. His justification of drug trafficking is as empty as Bush’s claim of WMDs. Both claimed that “we will make them pay with their oil,” which didn’t work then and probably won’t work now. Bush at least knew that he had to have troops in the country to control it, but Trump is too much a coward to commit troops (and good for them, given the abuse they suffered in the hands of Bush), which means that all he’s got is his “I got your leader, so I own you” certificate.

Aside: This post is my “marker” of thoughts right after an event. Here’s the post I wrote on 12 September 2001 in relation to the 9/11 attack. My thoughts then still hold up pretty well.

On 2 Jan, I listened to Dave McWilliams interview Juan Gabriel Tokatlian on the right way and the wrong way to intervene in Venezuela, in what was probably one of the best-timed (released 30 Dec, thus four days before the 3 Jan kidnapping) analyses in my memory (Wag the Dog — released one month before the Lewinski scandal/attack on Sudan — is another favorite preview). Tokatlian says that the right way is to let Latin American leaders take care of Maduro; the wrong way would be for the US to do it. And Trump, as usual (but with the best advice, I am sure), chose the wrong way.

So, now what? First of all, Trump doesn’t control Venezuela. Maduro’s allies have taken over. Second, good luck taking oil revenues from a country full of very poor people. Third, his cases against Maduro and for his action are prima facie laughable justified, based on Bush Sr’s 1989 invasion of Panama and seizure of Noriega (I changed this sentence after reading Plex’s answer to my question).

We knew then, and we know now that these claims are a fig leaf on top of a pile of hypocrisy (Noriega had stopped working with the CIA; Mexico is the real waypoint for drugs entering the US; Trump just pardoned a convicted leader of state for far more serious drug trafficking), so I doubt whether any majority of people anywhere are going to see Trump’s actions as justified and legal, as opposed to bullying. (Trump, as ever, is behaving like a bully — telling others that they’d better accept whatever abuse he’s dishing out or he will beat them up. I don’t really feel sorry for Maduro — a total disaster of a dictator — but I do for all the women and girls Trump has abused and raped.)

But the greater geo-political implications are much more worrying. China and Russia are allies of Venezuela (to get oil and to piss off the Americans, respectively). Next, these two, plus the US, all want to replace “international rule of law” with a system of Great Powers controlling their spheres of influence, or — perhaps more chillingly recreating the dynamics of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.  This “new world order 2.0” would mean that Russia can have Ukraine, the US can have Venezuela, and China can have Taiwan. It would probably also mean that all three powers would get bogged down by the collective resistance of the Lilliputians (read this really nice summary).

For that system to work would mean that Trump would give up on his attempts to limit the rise of China. If he wants to stop China, then he’d oppose a take over of Taiwan, which would make him a hypocrite (yet again), but maybe he prefer that to fighting China — in the same way that he prefers that Ukraine gives in to Russia (his various “peace” proposals) or that the Palestinians agree to be absorbed into greater Israel.

Ironically (?), both Russia and China have condemned Trump’s actions in VZ. So I guess that means they will leave UA and TW alone… or are hypocrites themselves? Fun times.

If he maintains support for Taiwan and Ukraine, and Russia and China maintain support for Venezuela, then the dynamic is unstable. I’d guess that China would insist on buying VZ’s oil on commercial terms (not those of US oil companies); if Trump refuses, then we’re getting deeper into the “Thucydides Trap,” in which a third country (VZ) triggers war between the dominant (US) and rising (CN) power.

Bottom line: Trump’s ongoing destruction of rule-of-law is bad for the US and the world.

Addendum (6 Jan): Follow-up interview with Tolkatlian that adds some useful context.