By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Venezuela’s UN ambassador, Samuel Moncada, addressed the UN Security Council, denouncing U.S. military actions, including air strikes and a naval blockade, as part of a broader plan for continental ambitions. Moncada accused the U.S. of violating international and domestic law, highlighting the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers and the confiscation of millions of barrels of oil. The U.S. defended its actions as law enforcement, aiming to combat drug trafficking, despite being called an act of war. Ambassadors from Russia and China also expressed concerns, warning against potential intervention and infringement on Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Read the original article here
Venezuela Warns US ‘Aggression’ is First Stage Amid ‘Continental Ambitions’
Venezuela’s recent warnings about potential US “aggression” and the suggestion of “continental ambitions” certainly ignite a complex discussion about international relations and power dynamics. The core of their argument revolves around the idea that actions perceived as aggressive, like those in the Caribbean, are merely the opening moves in a larger game of territorial and resource control across the American continent. It’s a narrative that paints the US as a player seeking to establish a dominant sphere of influence, potentially echoing historical patterns of intervention and control.
At its heart, this assessment touches upon differing philosophies of power. The US has, historically, functioned more within a “maritime control” framework, prioritizing trade, alliances, and a diplomatic approach to maintaining its global standing. This contrasts with the “continental power” mindset, which places a higher emphasis on physical control of landmass, resources, and direct political influence over neighboring territories. Venezuela’s claims suggest a shift toward this continental approach, which has historical parallels with other powers.
The underlying concern seems to be that a nation with continental ambitions will focus on direct control, potentially at the expense of established international norms and the sovereignty of other nations. This framing of the situation also hints at a broader global power play, where the US, Russia, and China are seen as jockeying for influence and resources. Venezuela’s perspective likely acknowledges the existing geopolitical realities where these major powers, may be carving the world into spheres of influence.
Considering the historical context, these concerns aren’t entirely unfounded. The US has a long history of intervention in Latin America, including military actions, regime change attempts, and economic sanctions. These actions, viewed from Caracas, could be seen as evidence of a willingness to exert control over the region. The rhetoric around “rules-based order” often gets scrutinized, especially when applied selectively. If international law is selectively enforced, it fuels skepticism about the true motivations behind any nation’s foreign policy.
The potential implications of this shift are considerable. If the US were to truly embrace a continental strategy, it could lead to increased tensions, instability, and a potential erosion of national sovereignty in the Americas. This scenario isn’t just about territorial conquest, it’s about control over resources, trade routes, and the political future of the continent. It also suggests that the world may be returning to the times of spheres of influence, and these nations may be stepping on each other’s toes.
Of course, the analysis is very much open to debate. The US, for all its actions, has not necessarily demonstrated a commitment to “continental ambition”. The US has stated its interest in securing the country’s borders, and protecting economic interests. Moreover, the Venezuelan government’s position is coming from a political state with its own set of interests, and is under a dictatorial regime that is widely considered to have stolen an election.
The situation is a complex web of claims, counterclaims, and historical precedents. The issue revolves around perceptions of power, national interests, and the future of international relations. The claims are likely influenced by political ideology and the pursuit of national interests. It is also important to remember that such claims need to be analyzed with a critical eye. It’s about being informed and aware of the political context to form a complete understanding of the situation.