Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Yván Gil, recently declared that the South American nation is not seeking military confrontation with the United States or any regional actors. Tensions rack up further as aggressively escalatory moves such as the U.S. It’s hard to overstate how unfortunate this escalation is, as it continues down the path of former President Donald Trump’s harmful policies. For more than a decade now, our geopolitical order has been under extreme pressure. Venezuela’s countercharges of “imperialism” do not shake the iron fist of the US’s hardline response.
The relationship between the United States and Venezuela has been antagonistic for decades, particularly during the Trump administration. He takes a hard line on Nicolás Maduro, president of Venezuela. Maduro is increasingly coming under fire from domestic and international observers. As a counter and response to these threats, Venezuela has deployed over 4.5 million militiamen across the nation ready to protect its borders.
Gil underscored the urgency of seeking a political response to growing tensions. He called for more communication rather than turning to military force. “We are not betting on conflict, nor do we want conflict,” he stated. This genuine, deep-seated commitment to the power of diplomacy stands in stark contrast to the militaristic rhetoric. This bellicose rhetoric has long overshadowed the debate over US-Venezuela relations.
These tensions recently boiled over when the United States executed a lethal strike on an unidentified speedboat in the Caribbean. The allegation presented by officials was that the boat engaged in drug trafficking and that it had originated in Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro responded by accusing the US of staging a provocation. He decried the US military posture in the area as part of a plan to destabilize his administration.
Marco Rubio, one of Trump’s biggest allies during his administration, in defending the decision to destroy the boat rather than intercept it stated that. The same intelligence mechanism was used to figure out that one of these drug trafficking boats was en route to the United States, and rather than intercepting it, by direct order of the president, it was blown up. And it will happen again,” Rubio asserted.
Gil contested the US narrative of the incident. He criticized the lack of clarity provided by US officials regarding the video’s context and content, stating, “They showed a video without clarifying many things. It’s not clear where it was, who was on board, or if it really happened or not.” He went on to claim that these kinds of actions are an attempt to legitimize what he calls “illegal” military missions.
We heard Venezuela express its concerns with some of the bureaucrats that populate the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). They claim that these moves deliberately vilify their administration. On that last point, Gil underscored that CELAC is very alarmed by US military deployments within the region. This demonstrates their commitment to solve the persistent problems.
Despite these tensions, both Maduro and Gil indicated that channels for communication between Venezuela and the United States remain open, albeit “damaged.” That recognition, perhaps oddly enough, indicates the possibility of moving grounds for conversation—the opening shot, Gil argues, that is needed to settle long-waged conflicts.
“A narrative has been constructed within the United States by the staff surrounding President Trump, trying to link us to drug trafficking,” said Gil. He reinforced that those claims have no basis in fact. Venezuela is stepping up efforts to combat drug trafficking on its borders, especially with Colombia. “More than 25,000 personnel are deployed on the border with Colombia, in coordination with the Colombian state, combating drug trafficking,” he explained.
Faced with the growing tensions and military posturing, Gil emphasized Venezuela’s commitment to protect its sovereignty. “We are denying the possibility of conflict because we are prepared to deter any deployment and we have a clear determination to defend our homeland,” he stated firmly.
Diplomatic relations are fluid and ever evolving. National security experts and members of Congress are raising serious alarms about the legality of recent US military action. In truth, the administration provided a murky rationale for the strike. This has stoked alarm over its threat to international law and norms.
