There could be broader international implications amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, according to one military and national security expert.
Anthony Seaboyer told CTV’s Your Morning on Friday that the U.S. may have some things to answer for, including the justification for attacking vessels and the military action the U.S. is threatening in Venezuela.
This threatened action “would be another transgression of international rule of law, natural order. This would be attacking of the southern nation,” Seaboyer said. “I think this would be very bad for the U.S.’s reputation, and for allies working together with the U.S. This would be an unprecedented form of attack.”
The U.S. is claiming that those on the ships are avoiding sanctions.
“We know there’s the shadow fleet of ships that are bringing resources to Russia,” Seaboyer said.
But, he said, as the U.S. justifies attacks with arguments on sanctions violations, there is still no “due process” being followed through international bodies.
“This is unilateral action by the U.S., which sets a very bad precedent for other countries to do similar actions,” he added.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, and is under intense pressure from the U.S., he said, adding that most of the oil produced goes to China.
“Obviously, the U.S. is interested in diversifying and getting cheaper resources and access to oil,” Seaboyer said. “This will play a role, although the U.S. government is denying this at this point.”
There is a possibility that China could get involved in the rising international conflict, he added.
“China’s interest (is) in keeping access to this comparatively cheap oil,” Seaboyer said. “This will be yet another conflict directly with the U.S. in terms of access to very precious and important resources for the Chinese industry.”
Actions by the Trump administration are being interpreted as a strategy for dominance in the South America, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, according to Seaboyer.
“This is also, I believe, a distraction,” Seaboyer added.
“Because there’s no real justification that I can see from a national security perspective to attack those 20 vessels that we’ve seen.”
The U.S. has a major problem with drugs entering the country, Seaboyer said, but he sees the U.S. arguments that some of these vessels are tied to drug smuggling as attempts to evade international law.
Other countries like Russia and China have displayed their interest in being able to attack vessels at sea, he said, and the U.S. acting without the usual international checks and balances could set a dangerous precedent for other countries.
“We want international law to be upheld. We want particularly Western powers to uphold these values,” Seaboyer said. “That’s not what we’re seeing from U.S. in this regard.”
He called the deployment of warships on Venezuelan soil a “massively aggressive posture” by U.S. President Donald Trump towards Venezuela that raises questions about how far the U.S. could go to attack targets on Venezuelan soil.
“These rhetorics are unprecedented in terms of diplomatic consequences they have,” Seaboyer added.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed his support for Venezuela during a phone call with its long-time ally, President Nicolas Maduro, the Kremlin said on Thursday, following the latest escalation between the two feuding countries, when the U.S. seized an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast on Wednesday.
The U.S. accused Venezuela’s leftist leader of captaining a drug cartel, which he has denied.
Maduro in response has accused the U.S. of trying to take a hold of Venezuela’s oil reserves by trying to change the regime.
At least 87 people have died in nearly 22 strikes on the vessels in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, since Trump deployed the warships in striking distance of Venezuela.
With files from AFP
