Europe’s Inaction on Trump’s Illegal Aggression in Venezuela: Not Just Wrong, But Foolish | Nathalie Tocci
European Leaders’ Tepid Response to U.S. Actions in Venezuela
The recent military operation by the United States aimed at regime change in Venezuela has prompted a wave of discussion among European leaders. Their responses reveal a complex interplay of political strategy and public opinion in the context of international relations.
Europe’s Hesitation on U.S. Military Actions
Following their muted reactions to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and acceptance of U.S./Israel tensions with Iran, many European leaders have hesitated to openly condemn the U.S. operation in Venezuela. While Spain, the Netherlands, and Norway have made strong statements, the majority of European governments have adopted a cautious approach, often refraining from direct criticism. Spain has stood out by aligning with several Latin American nations to condemn the U.S. attack, highlighting the complexity of international law amid issues of sovereignty and democracy in America.
Political Implications and International Law
Prominent figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have alluded to international law while distancing themselves from Nicolás Maduro’s regime. Despite acknowledging Maduro’s illegitimacy, their responses often lack firm condemnation of U.S. actions, raising questions about the role of international law and democratic principles in foreign policy. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz even suggested a legal review of the U.S. strategy, which obscures the fundamental violation at hand.
Explaining Europe’s Ambiguity
There are multiple theories behind Europe’s hesitance to criticize the U.S. operation, all related to the continent’s security. One potential rationale is the fear of provoking former President Donald Trump, who may retaliate by reducing military support in Europe or withdrawing troops from NATO commitments. While these concerns may seem legitimate, they overlook the reality of Trump’s past actions and potential future behavior regarding European security, particularly in relation to Ukraine.
The Geopolitical Landscape
Another line of thinking links the U.S. military action to broader territorial ambitions, such as Trump’s expressed interest in Greenland. This so-called “Donroe Doctrine” reflects an aggressive U.S. approach in the Western Hemisphere, raising alarms about future interventions. European leaders may fear that criticism of the U.S. could undermine their interests in Greenland and beyond, perpetuating a narrative of subservience to American hegemony.
Venezuelan Oil and the Russian Connection
Additionally, the relationship between Venezuela and Russia complicates the European response. With Maduro’s ties to Putin, a regime change in Venezuela has implications for global oil prices, potentially striking a blow to Russia’s economy amid ongoing international tensions. However, this does not excuse Europe’s reticence to uphold international law and human rights in light of a gross military violation.
The Consequences of Inaction
While the fall of Maduro might weaken Russian influence, allowing a new regime favorable to Western interests, it cannot justify the means by which such a change is sought. European leaders must recognize that allowing foreign military intervention undermines sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent, ultimately threatening European security and democratic values.
