US incursion threatens all, even Britain

US military action against Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro should be unilaterally condemned as a violation of sovereignty. Simply that, no if or buts.

Many governments have done so, not necessarily through love of Maduro but because they see Trump’s action as a danger to global peace and stability. Shamefully the British government is not one of those. But that’s no surprise given its support for Trump’s sanctions on Venezuela, along with the EU, naturally.

Seemingly lost for direction, Keir Starmer said at first that he’d have to look carefully at whether the USA had done anything wrong! Then his government said that it hoped the people of Venezuela could return to democracy.

Global politics

The US attack was not about drug smuggling, or democracy, or really even about Venezuela. It was about global politics, economies and commodities. Hence the threats made against Cuba, Colombia, Iran…and Greenland (even Starmer seems to object to that, though you can’t be entirely sure).

Machado has been sidelined and ignored by Trump, who now wants to rule the country through the threat of further violence. Trump’s actions are not those of a maverick, but are in line with US foreign policy going back 200 years.

US interests

Trump’s constant references to Venezuela’s oil reserves shows that the action was motivated by what he sees as the interests of the USA, and not the people of Venezuela. That’s why it’s right to condemn the action.

The USA has interfered to a lesser or greater extent in the affairs of practically every country in the Americas. And above all it seeks to isolate and overpower Cuba. It is not just that Cuba advocates an alternative economic system to capitalism; the USA sees Cuban support for independent and sovereign nations as an affront.

Power

US actions have varied from covertly undermining governments to using economic leverage to openly exercising military power. But always directed at serving its own economic interests – and by default that means the rule of global capitalism.

In the 80-year period since the end of the second world war, the USA has adopted a combined aggressive approach – political, economic and military – in pursuit of its own objectives. This has been enabled by the use of the US dollar as the currency in which commodities are bought and sold, protecting the US economy.

Failures

Failures – in Vietnam and various attempts at regime change – have not deterred it. But rather in response to economic shifts and its own problems, the USA has become even more aggressive. It cannot sustain its economic position in the long term if other countries bypass the dollar and deal directly with each other.

‘USA cannot sustain its economic position if other countries bypass the dollar.’

And that is precisely what’s been happening with Venezuela, which has plenty of oil but was subject to US sanctions, and China, which needs to import oil. The two countries have been dealing directly, cutting out the dollar. It’s just one element of a growing move away from dollar transactions for commodities – for sound capitalist reasons, as it happens. The manufacturing and financial domination of the USA is now open to question, even though it remains by far the largest economy.

Competition

Wars fought between empires are always about competition – for land and labour (slaves) in historical times, for commodities and labour (wage slaves) in more modern times. The competition between the USA and China is no different in basis, even if the forms it often now takes – tariffs, embargoes and so on – are different. But as happened last weekend in Venezuela, the threat of direct force is ever present.

The action against Venezuela also highlights the threat that the US continues to pose to Britain’s sovereignty. Over 10,000 US military and covert intelligence personnel are based in our country. A few Royal Navy sailors are reported to be serving in the US Navy task force off the coast of Venezuela.

‘USA exercises considerable influence over British affairs.’

The USA exercises considerable and often malign influence over British affairs. This goes far beyond members of Trump’s administration commenting on our internal politics.

Britain’s membership of NATO is the cement that holds that threat in place. That’s why it is essential Britain leaves NATO and expels a US occupying force that has been here since the second world war. This requires an assertion of British sovereignty – and an end to any “reset” with the EU, NATO’s political partner.

No to US aggression!

Britain out of NATO!