Lawrence Fishbourne

This will probably not please the hardcore partisans on either side, but here is my take on the US regime change operation in Venezuela. I have zero sympathy for the communist dictator Maduro, who—along with his predecessor Chavez—destroyed his country’s economy and forced millions into exile. I won’t shed a tear if this regime is finally collapsing. However, that change of regime was the responsibility of Venezuelans themselves. I cannot support the Americans for once again militarily intervening in a country that posed no threat to them, and for having illegally kidnapped its president and his wife. They act, as they have for decades, like imperialist bullies who believe they have the right to do whatever they want, anywhere in the world. The dozens of US foreign interventions since WWII—invasions, coups, wars, bombings, assassinations—have nearly all had devastating long-term consequences and been responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents. Despite overwhelming US military superiority, they’ve also often led to defeats and humiliations, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Who knows where the Americans “running Venezuela,” a huge country of 30 million, will lead to? We can credit President Trump for showing far more restraint than his predecessors, not having started any major war so far and at least trying to limit civilian casualties when attacking other countries like Iran and Venezuela now. But let’s not be naive. This intervention has nothing to do with ending drug trafficking or restoring democracy. It is about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world, as Trump himself admits, and countering Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America. It’s also about propping up the petrodollar and slowing down the dedollarization trend initiated by the BRICS, at a time when Washington has lost control of its spending and the dollar is being debased at an accelerated rate. Trump understands better than his predecessors that the world is becoming multipolar and that American military and financial hegemony is waning. He accepts that the US can no longer intervene everywhere with impunity, but is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine to maintain control over the Americas. This explains his aggressive policy toward Venezuela, the financial bailout of Argentina, and his outrageous stance on taking over Canada and Greenland. This is not good for Canada. We are overly dependent on the US economically and militarily, and we obviously cannot afford to threaten their key interests. We must therefore be prudent. They could just as easily find a reason to intervene here one day—as they did 250 years ago this week, when they tried to capture Quebec City after occupying Montreal in an attempt to force Canada to join their revolution and snatch more territory from the British. But being prudent does not mean we have to support all their pointless wars and immoral geopolitical stances. We certainly should not congratulate them when they act like arrogant bullies, as Pierre Poilievre foolishly did yesterday. Just as we should have done regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we must remain neutral and stay out of foreign conflicts that do not directly concern us—and, as always, put Canada’s interests first.