I found this thread by a writer and journalist, Nacho Montes de Oca. The information is in Spanish so I translated it. It talks about the possibilities of some kind of international intervention in Venezuela. I thought it had complete information. I wanted to share it on SN because I would like to read your points of view based on this information. I would like to know if you know other data regarding international aid for Venezuela.
"We are going to explain why it is difficult for a military intervention in Venezuela to take place by the US, a coalition similar to the one that liberated Kuwait or through the application of the TIAR. It is time to speak with data in hand and stop fantasizing.
First let's be clear; this is not about discouraging the legitimate struggle of Venezuelans, but the opposite. The fight they are proposing is more realistic than repeating that "demonstrations are useless, we must take military action" and mocking the way they chose to seek change.
On the other side there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers, police and hitmen armed to the teeth and the unarmed Venezuelans know it and suffer it right now. Also, after 25 years of waiting for an external military intervention, they know many of the facts contained in this thread.
Let's start with the possibility of US intervention, which is the most demanded by many. Let's understand before we start talking that we are not talking about Russia, where Putin can order an invasion of foreign territory with a gesture. Let's go to the mechanism of the use of force.
In the US, there is the War Powers Act of 1973, created to limit the president's power to declare war or order military action in undeclared wars. Its text determines the conditions for sending troops abroad in a very precise manner.
https://m.stacker.news/44476
He can only do so under two assumptions: the declaration of war by Congress on another state or states. The president cannot declare it himself and therefore Biden or his successor are tied to a decision by the legislators.
The second assumption is that the country faces “a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, possessions, or its armed forces.” In the case of Venezuela, that condition does not exist, at least for now. Maduro should create a reason
Let's look at the political situation. The US is in an election period. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and Republicans in the House of Representatives. They should come to an agreement after finding a reason for consensus to authorize an action in Venezuela.
During the campaign, it was clear that MAGA, the Republican wing, emphasized that the US should focus on protecting its borders and reducing spending on external conflicts, which led to the 6-month blockade of aid to Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel, a priority ally under attack.
This position, which has even led to confrontations with NATO partners, makes it difficult for the US to move forward with a permit to intervene in Venezuela with all the costs and political complexities that would be involved in getting involved in a conflict that does not directly affect a national interest.
It can be argued that it is possible to intervene “under the desk” as was done in the past. It is not that simple either and we will go back to history to explain it, making it clear that we can only refer to the period after 1973 when a legal limit was placed on this practice.
Let's get to the reasons. When Washington launched Operation Just Cause on December 20, 1989 and invaded Panama, it did so with Congressional authorization and invoking the risk Noriega represented for control of the Panama Canal, then administered by the United States.
In the case of Iran, there was an invasion of the US embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and then the kidnapping of American citizens by Hezbollah, in addition to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 as justification.
The invasion of Grenada called “Urgent Fury” and carried out on October 25, 1983 was justified by the protection of 600 American students and 400 civilians of the same nationality present on the island as an excuse to also overthrow the pro-Soviet Hudson Austin
The US invasion of Afghanistan that began in October 2000 was a direct consequence of the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 1991. There was a direct interest invoked, as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, due to the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction.
When the Nicaraguan Contras were supported and trained, the risk of a Soviet advance in a strategic area was invoked. In any case, Congress imposed the “Boland Amendment” in 1982 so that the assistance would not be directed towards overthrowing the Sandinista government.
This background is valid to understand why in that same year the government of Ronald Reagan decided to look for another way to finance these operations with money obtained from drug cartels and the sale of arms to Iran, which gave rise to the "Iran-Contra" scandal.
The affair ended with a prison sentence for one of the ideologues of the operation, Colonel Oliver North, and the security adviser John Poindexter being convicted. In Washington, they know the story and it is an additional impediment to take into account.
This factor leads directly to the demand for arms to be sent to Venezuela or for guerrillas to be formed by the opposition. Neither the US nor the rest of the West can do this so easily. And the CIA or the NSA have real limits, we are not in a Tom Clancy book.
Arming and training a dissident group requires significant amounts of budget and again we return to Congress, which is the one that must authorize the appropriations and review the spending to avoid the diversion of funds. Again, it is not Russia or Cuba where there is no accountability.
They also wonder why a drone or a missile is not sent in to root out the problem. Such an action falls into the same category as a military intervention with foot soldiers. This is how the system works, not how we wish.
Chavismo was careful not to attack US interests and since January 2019 there is no embassy or diplomatic personnel due to the expulsion ordered by Maduro. American companies in Venezuela could be an interest to protect, but until now they have not been sufficient reason.
Having explained the issue of US intervention, we go to the assumption of an international intervention and this brings us back to the coalition that was formed to remove Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait in 1991. It is a precedent that many use as a reference.
That military operation against Iraq that brought together forces from 34 countries arose as a consequence of the authorization of the UN through Resolution 660 backed by the Security Council and the support of two of its permanent members: China and Russia.
Moscow and Beijing recognized Maduro as the winner of the elections and are allies of Chavismo. Therefore, we can rule out a UN mandate because from their position in the Security Council they can veto any attempt to repeat the experience of 1991.
The dispatch of a military force of Blue Helmets must be approved by the Security Council and it is impossible for China and Russia to help weaken the authority and repressive capacity of Chavismo, which in February expelled the UN High Commissioner for denouncing its atrocities.
Another armed coalition to intervene abroad was the one organized to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999, which, although unauthorized by the UN, was based on a NATO request to intervene in a regional conflict that, in its opinion, affected its collective security.
In that case, there was a political base in the European Union and a military arm in the form of NATO, as well as a network of regional defense agreements that do not exist in Latin America. This brings us to the question of the Inter-American Reciprocal Defense Treaty, the TIAR.
The TIAR was created in September 1947 in the context of the beginning of the Cold War at the request of the United States to ensure the support of the continent in the event of a Soviet attack. The possibilities of using it to resolve the Venezuelan crisis are slim and we are going to see why.
Firstly, because it is a Treaty that must be invoked in the event of an external aggression against America and what is happening in Venezuela is an internal matter. Denouncing the presence of Wagner's Russians on Venezuelan soil is not enough to activate the TIAR.
https://m.stacker.news/44509
-
The High Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack by any State against an American State will be considered an attack against all American States, and consequently, each of said Contracting Parties undertakes to help confront the attack, in exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
-
At the request of the State or States directly attacked, and until the decision of the Consultative Body of the Inter-American System, each of the Contracting Parties may determine the immediate measures that it adopts individually, in compliance with the obligation referred to in the preceding paragraph and accordance with the principle of continental solidarity. The Consultative Body will meet without delay in order to examine these measures and agree on the collective measures that should be adopted.
-
The provisions of this Article will apply in all cases of armed attack carried out within the region described in Article 4 or within the territory of an American State. When the attack takes place outside said areas, the provisions of Article 6 will apply.
-
The measures of self-defense referred to in this Article may be applied as long as the United Nations Security Council has not taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security.
Another problem is that the TIAR mechanism assumes that the attacked country must request its implementation and, although Maduro is not recognized as an authority, Edmundo González would not be admitted by all the members of the Treaty as a legitimate president.
https://m.stacker.news/44510
ARTICLE 9.
In addition to other acts that in a consultation meeting can be characterized as aggression, they will be
considered as such: a) The armed attack, unprovoked, by a State, against the territory, population or land, naval or air forces of another State;
b) The invasion, by the armed force of a State, of the territory of an American State, through the transfer
of the borders demarcated in accordance with a treaty, judicial ruling, or arbitration award, or, in the absence of borders so demarcated, the invasion that affects a region that is under the effective jurisdiction of another State,
ARTICLE 10
Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as impairing the rights and obligations of the High Contracting Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 11.°
The consultations referred to in this Treaty will be carried out through the Meeting of Ministers. Foreign Relations of the American Republics that have ratified it, or in the form or by the body that in the future will be remembered.
It happens that the scope of application of the TIAR is the OAS as successor of the Pan American Union that created the mechanism and within this organization nations such as Brazil, Mexico and Colombia have already shown that they are not inclined to align themselves even with a request to condemn Maduro's fraud.
The other unsolvable problem is that Maduro withdrew Venezuela from the OAS in 2019 and therefore it can no longer be applied for a defense claim. Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador have all left the TIAR in the past, further reducing its scope.
Other countries could invoke the TIAR if they claim to be affected by the migratory or drug trafficking effects of the Venezuelan crisis in the absence of more direct reasons, but even so the balance of power within the OAS is a very strong political limitation that is not resolved.
The TIAR had already proven ineffective in the Malvinas War and was requested 20 times without success until the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 2001, the US invoked it to seek support for 911. In response, Mexico withdrew from the Treaty, claiming that it was an obsolete instrument.
There is another reason why neither the US, nor the West, nor the region are rushing into a military intervention in Venezuela. For two and a half years, the political basis for confronting the invasion of Ukraine has been based on two principles: respect for sovereignty and rejection of the use of force.
If the region breaks the same Pandora's Box that Putin destroyed in Ukraine in 2014 and then in 2023, the entire framework on which the rejection of Russian aggression is based would evaporate. It is not just voluntarism, but a question of political practice.
If there is a military intervention in Venezuela, in addition to the consequences for its population, the right to invade foreign territory to resolve a situation that, from the perspective of the intervener, is the most efficient solution would automatically be enabled.
It can be argued that this is a defence of democracy, but the risk is that with the same argument and considering that they are actually authorised, other countries, autocratic or not, will carry out similar invasions in the future or will be authorised to interfere with greater impunity in other countries.
It is true that some governments interfere politically in other countries, as is the case with Cuba and Chavismo itself. But by legitimizing an invasion or the arming of dissidents, they would become potential recipients of a reciprocal response. We must think beyond fury.
If the system of checks and balances of power is broken and the autocracies' intention to return to the era of the use of force to resolve disputes is also endorsed, the problem will go beyond Venezuela. It is about not killing cockroaches by blowing up the entire neighborhood.
For this reason, and beyond the good intentions of many exasperated by the brutal repression against the Venezuelan people at the hands of Chavismo, we must understand that the world has rules of operation and reasons that escape our desires and fantasies.
To those who despise Venezuelans for being “lukewarm” for marching and protesting through political means instead of taking up arms that only exist on Netflix, I tell them that they do not know everything that is in the thread and how courageous one must be to continue resisting despite it.
They have the option of private initiative and nobody stops those who consider themselves to have enough knowledge and balls to go to Venezuela to put their proposals into practice. But in the scenario of the countries there are rules, conditions and precedents that explain it.
At the time, Juan Guaidó called for international intervention in Venezuela and even invoked the TIAR. Since 2019, many Venezuelan leaders understood the limitations described in this thread and decided to stop waiting for the manna of military aid.
With this data it is easier to understand the scenario and the strategy of Machado, González and the rest of the opposition. Also, because they use the tools they have at hand and the reason why they do not call for marines, drones and aircraft carriers. They know the panorama better than many.
External help will not come so easily. Venezuelans are cruelly exposed to the Chavista weapons. Now they know the reasons why they know they depend on them and their perseverance. Respect for those who are alone in an unequal struggle and, even so, persist.
PS: Venezuela is far from giving up. If so many Venezuelans continue to defy a beastly regime knowing that they are deprived of direct assistance from outside, it is because they see something powerful on the horizon that sustains them and they have stopped waiting for the 7th Cavalry to come and save them."