By: Chris S. Orngu, PhD Introduction: In historical contexts, the United States has, over time, conveniently dominated the Weste...
By: Chris S. Orngu, PhD
Introduction:
In historical contexts, the United States has, over time, conveniently dominated the Western Hemisphere through a strategically calculated diplomacy of imperial dominion. This consciousness has translated to a hegemonic foreign policy thrust through which the United States has unquestionably exerted influence on the economic, political and military space within the region under conversation here.
Recent developments in the Western Hemisphere, particularly the invasion of the territorial space and power fortress of Venezuela by the United States, clearly point to the aggressive disposition of the latter’s foreign policy thrust that has always been helmed in the prioritization of strategic interest, great power dominion and competition in global affairs since 1945.
Generally, the motivating factors for the recent United States intervention in the domestic affairs of Venezuela are multilevel, multidimensional and multifaceted. Thus, the causes for the invasion of Venezuela appear to overwhelm a straightjacket perspective and a monocausal interpretation. However, hypothetically, the gamut of factors can be conveniently encapsulated in the seemingly unquenchable desire of the United States to establish and sustain its control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves – worth trillions of dollars – and, through this calculated policy of dominion, reestablish its influence not only in Venezuela but also across the Western Hemisphere for strategic interest.
A flashback into the history of the United States power relations connects with the Monroe Doctrine, which was conceptualized by President James Monroe in 1823. The Doctrine served as a driver of the United States foreign policy of dominion that aimed at dissipating further colonization of the Americas by Europe. The Doctrine, which was anchored on geopolitics from its inception, has since remained the architectural centerpiece of the United States foreign policy that oils the instrumentality for exerting and asserting its influence in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the international system.
Matters Arising from the United States Invasion of Venezuela:
There are majorly two contenting perspectives on the United States invasion of Venezuela. The two perspectives are driven on two parallel lines – one hinges on international law and morality while the other proceeds along the line of assumptive interpretation of United States action. Curiously, the main presuppositions of the perspectives are driven along the lines of normative considerations and other ideological speculations completely away from the realist perspective of international relations. Simplistically, realism in international relations sees sovereign states in the light of brutally self-seeking actors that place premium on power, security and national interest. This means that in the intellectual tradition and theoretical postulation of realism, state actors make decisions and carry out actions that align strictly with their self-seeking interest without consideration for morality or ethical concerns. Clearly, this is the theoretical assumption that provides a dazzling spotlight on the recent action of the United States in Venezuela.
The United States has rationalized its recent action on the political infelicities that have perpetually characterized Venezuela’s leadership under Nicolas Maduro, citing corruption, election rigging and involvement in drug trafficking as the main triggers of the invasion.To a discerning and perceptive observer of international trends against the backdrop of the United States power relations, this is arguably a subterfuge.
Implications of the United States Invasion of Venezuela for Great Power Relations:
Of course, there are bound to be reactions from other actors on the global stage. The nature of great power relations that have trailed the United States action in Venezuela has already manifested interest and reaction differentials from state actors with strategic interest in the Western Hemisphere. This has illustrated an intensity of great power competition championed by Sino-US and Russo-US rivalry, which may lead to unpredictable trajectory of power relations in the Western Hemisphere and beyond.
It is likely that some countries may resist the overbearing assertiveness of the United States in the Western Hemisphere. China has already condemned the invasion of Venezuela by the United States.This has implications for international economic relations. On a broader scale, the reinvigoration of realism is likely to reshape the dynamics of international relations, and reconfigure regional alliances and multilateral institutions.
What Lessons for Nigeria?:
Nigeria is trapped in a multiplicity of political infelicities that manifest different forms of misgovernance in the face of escalating terrorism, banditry and criminality – all of which have combined to dislocate the very foundation of the country’s national security and territorial integrity. Similarly, rabid corruption combines with a fundamental disequilibrium in the nation’s economy to instigate the worsening material condition of the masses while leaders have continued to flaunt their stupendous wealth acquired through the mindless and primitive pillage of public resources. Added to this array of unenviable conditions, the impunity of corruption has denied the masses basic social amenities and critical infrastructure; and has further sequestrated the prospects for a better tomorrow. The majority of Nigerians are living in neglect and abject poverty – which means that the poor masses have become disconnected from the dividends of good governance and have thus become disenchanted with the system. The excitement of many disenchanted Venezuelans that followed the United States invasion readily speaks to this fear. The rowdy atmosphere and steadily growing disenchantment of Nigeria’s masses, among other threats to lives and property, have made the country’s domestic space and territorial integrity vulnerable and susceptible to external interference. The recent military action against terrorists in their hideout in Sokoto State, which Donald Trump dubbed as Christmas Gift to Nigeria, affords a vivid illustration of this unfortunate reality.
Conclusion:
Since the emergence of the modern state system in 1648 arising from the Treaty of Westphalia, statecentric international relations has evolved through the centuries with ever-emerging issues that keep responding to the dynamic realities of an ever-changing world system. The dominant factor in inter-state relations is power. This defines the disparity problematic in international relations where might is always right. The United States has situated itself on the hill in international affairs; and, through its power capabilities, it has maintained a superior position in world affairs and appropriated to itself the appellate of the policeman of the world.The fact that the United Nations is a microcosm of the United States underscores this time-tested assertion. What has recently played out in Venezuela falls squarely within the ambition of the United States to push its hegemonic offensive beyond ordinary imagination where strategic interest is involved. Nigeria should draw lessons from the invasion of Venezuela and reposition its domestic environment in the direction of good governance to insulate itself from the windows of external interference in its domestic affairs.
Chris S. Orngu, PhD is Professor of Diplomatic History and Advanced Strategic Studies at Rev. Fr. Moses Orshio Adasu University, Makurdi, Nigeria.
No comments