In the USA they question the legality of the offensive and warn about oil plans
The operation launched by the United States on Saturday, which culminated in the capture of Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro and Donald Trump’s announcement that he would take over the transition in Venezuela, caused surprise in the United States because of its scope and the experts it consulted Clarion There are some worrying signs.
On the one hand, they affirm that the operation “Violates not only international law, but also U.S. law.”“On the other hand, they highlight the uncertainty and risk that is emerging in the Caribbean country under Trump’s leadership. But more than that, experts point out what impact this offensive could have on the oil market in the short and long term and on Trump’s interest in the sector.”
Javier Ruiz The lawyer specializing in international law and advisor to the International Criminal Court in The Hague told Clarín: “Trump’s operation is an illegal operation from the point of view of international law, it is an act of armed aggression in which he violates not only international law, but also US law.”
“Firstly, it violates US law because it did not give 48 hours’ notice that authorization must be obtained from Congress. And secondly, the threat to national security is not justified,” he asserts.
The expert points out that “according to international law, Trump’s deployment is a simple act of aggression in the sense of a violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition of force.”
But what could Trump have done under the law? Ruiz assures that “the legal remedy available to the United States is the document of former UN Secretary Kofi Annan, which indicates that when a government violates the human rights of its own citizens, the international community is responsible for protecting them and is obliged to be able to do so.”
The expert reiterates that this is the argument used in the case of Libya, in Syria in 2018 and in the NATO bombing of Kosovo. “The Responsibility to Protect with a United Nations General Assembly resolution without going through the Security Council would have had the legality that the attack needed.”
Ruiz noted that it is still unclear what it means for the United States to lead Venezuela’s government until an orderly transition is completed. “The means of transitional justice are: amnesty, commutation of sentence, external monitoring of a political transition. explained. “We are in a situation where there are more unknowns than certainties Trump decapitated the government but maintained the regime. They put Maduro in prison, but we don’t know if he wants to change the regime,” he says.
One of the key elements in the offensive against Maduro is oil. Trump mentioned the issue several times as fundamental to his offensive. Francisco Monaldi, He is director of the Latin American Energy Program at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a leading U.S. oil expert.
The expert of Venezuelan origin consulted by Clarín pointed out that “the United States can now redirect to the United States oil exports that went to the black market in China. Obviously they would only do this if the regime in Venezuela cooperates, because.” “So far we have a departure from Maduro, but the rest of the regime remains in place.” warns Monaldi.
The expert explains that Venezuela exported half a million barrels of oil to the USA. before the sanctions that Trump himself imposed in 2019. “Today it only exports 140,000. The rest of the exports went almost exclusively to China,” he emphasizes.
In addition, he points out that “the refineries on the coast of Texas and Louisiana would like to receive this heavy oil, and these refineries are designed to process this type of crude oil, which is sold at a discount. Therefore, they would have higher refining margins and could also slightly reduce the prices of refined products in the United States.”
The second possible effect would be, Monaldi adds the possibility of reducing the international price. “If Venezuela goes back to exporting everything it exported before the blockade, there will be more oil on the market and therefore the price on the world market would perhaps go down a little. But that would require the current Venezuelan government to cooperate and do what Trump wants it to do.”
The expert points out that the USA could benefit in the long term from American oil companies’ access to production in Venezuela. “Apparently Chevron is the first company to benefit because it has already produced 250,000 barrels and signed contracts and operations in Venezuela. “It can increase production relatively quickly, but still has the potential to expand its production.”
The other companies, says Monaldi, “will wait and have much more clarity in terms of the legal framework, the contractual framework, the tax framework, etc., to know whether they consider the balance between risks and returns to be attractive.” “In the long term, the fact that more oil is being produced in the Western Hemisphere is always something that the United States values from an energy security perspective,” he emphasizes.
The expert notes that “while Brazil, Argentina and Guyana are increasing production, Venezuela has the greatest growth potential, even greater than Brazil. “That doesn’t mean it will be achieved, but it would have a chance if everything works together, especially the political part.”
For Michael Shiftersaid.
“It is not surprising that the military operation was without setbacks and a success. What would be surprising, however, would be if Trump’s announced intention to “rule” Venezuela were equally successful. Trump appears to be minimizing the enormous risks that come with taking control and leadership of a country vast and complex, where Chavismo has been entrenched for more than a quarter of a century and where criminal groups such as the Colombian ELN insurgency operate freely,” he says.
For Shifter, it is “illusory to believe that Venezuelans will simply follow the United States’ instructions on how to organize and manage their country and join in without significant resistance or opposition.” “Trump appears to be downplaying the task that awaits him in Venezuela, but the issue could end up consuming the final three years of his term.”
“It is not surprising that Trump justifies the military intervention and the removal of Maduro with the acquisition of oil and development,” says the expert. “The first year of Trump’s second term in office has shown that his main concern is amassing as much money and power as possible. In Venezuela, that means oil.”
Shifter mentions another important point: the disqualification of the opponent María Corina Machado, SNobel Peace Prize winner who, in his opinion, does not have enough support in his country. “It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Trump is so disparaging of Machado as the leader of the Venezuelan opposition. For Trump, democracy is not a problem: for him it is about money, power and protecting the country from drugs and criminals.”
On the other hand, according to the expert, “the military intervention in Latin America has touched a nerve.” “The democratic governments of the three largest countries – Brazil, Mexico and Colombia – have strongly condemned the US military operation to overthrow Maduro. The intervention has significantly increased fear and distrust in the region towards a US president who appears to be bereft of rules and borders.”
