Intervention Policy as a Representation of the United States' Identity in International Relations Activities

The United States is a superpower nation that emerged victorious in World War II alongside the Soviet Union. Geographically, the United States is situated between the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south. It operates under a federal constitutional republic system of governance, comprising 50 states and a federal district. The United States spans an area of 9.834 million square kilometers, with a population of approximately 329 million people. The United States is a liberal democracy and a hub of global economic growth. It is also renowned as the world's largest producer of petroleum, utilizing a capitalist economic system to maximize profits. To achieve relative economic gains, the United States actively strengthens its influence in international relations by engaging in cooperation with other nations, often formalized through agreements or treaties. These collaborations are realized through activities such as exports, imports, and investments, which inherently serve economic and political objectives. 

Historically, the condition of the United States as a superpower in the aftermath of World War II has bestowed it with a favorable standing and reputation on the international stage. This advantageous position enabled the United States to engage in international relations with relative ease, aligning its activities with the national interests of the country. National interests, in essence, dictate the course of a nation's actions in foreign policy. K.J. Holsti categorizes national interests into three types. In the context of the United States, the first pertains to its vital interest in propagating liberal ideological values to other nations while striving to counteract and dominate the communist ideology championed by its rival, the Soviet Union. Secondly, its medium-term interest involves the reinforcement of its economic strength. Lastly, its long-term interest is embodied in its ambition to solidify its status as a superpower on the global stage. 

The United States’ efforts to achieve its national interests began with the establishment of a peace organization, now known as the United Nations (UN), in 1945. The primary goal of the UN's formation was to maintain global peace and to invite newly independent nations to join the organization. Other nations considered founding members of the UN include China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all of which hold veto power within the UN. In the international system, this dynamic establishes a pattern where member states of the UN operate under the influence of these five veto-holding nations. 

Subsequently, the United States' strategy to strengthen its influence involved providing aid to European countries to recover from the devastation of World War II. This approach was employed by the United States to attract European nations and shape their perception of the U.S. as a compassionate and benevolent country. To implement this plan, the U.S. launched the large-scale Marshall Plan, offering financial assistance to European countries amounting to $13 billion USD, or approximately IDR 179 trillion. This program also laid the foundation for the U.S. dollar to be established as the global reserve currency. Once the USD became the standard for international transactions, the next strategy was to establish the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to sustain and fortify the dollar’s position as the global reserve currency. Founded in 1947, the IMF and the World Bank were tasked with regulating international financial issues and providing loans to countries facing economic hardships. The IMF and the World Bank represent the face of the United States, successfully attracting around 190 countries to depend on their financial mechanisms. However, any country relying on the IMF and the World Bank is required to adhere to their principles and relinquish a portion of its sovereignty. Consequently, when a nation cedes part of its sovereignty to these institutions, it is, in effect, surrendering a degree of its sovereignty to the United States. 

Moreover, the insatiable nature of the United States as a nation is reflected in its political maneuvers. To solidify its position on the international stage and to dominate and regulate other countries—particularly in terms of fulfilling economic needs—the U.S. established an international trade regime known as the World Trade Organization (WTO). All forms of trade and investment activities are governed by the WTO, and every member state is required to comply with its principles. Fundamentally, the rules formulated and enforced by the WTO prioritize U.S. interests and favor countries with substantial capital. Consequently, nations under the WTO’s influence become heavily dependent on it, relinquishing a portion of their sovereignty. This, in turn, serves as a tool for the U.S. to intervene in the domestic affairs of member states, ultimately advancing its own objectives. 

Identity can be defined as the attributes inherent to an actor, which can ultimately determine the actor's policies. Identity shapes the interests of actors in international relations, and in turn, these interests influence policy decisions, which, indirectly, help to form identity—either reinforcing the existing identity or giving rise to a new one. Alexander Wendt classifies identity in international relations into four types: (1) Personal identity, where the identity of an actor in international relations is naturally formed, including symbols of the state, nationalism, physical attributes, and others. (2) Typological identity, which is influenced by ideology, political values, or religion. (3) Role identity, which emphasizes the position of the actor within international relations. (4) Group identity, formed when a group, consisting of a collection of state actors, cooperates within international relations, eventually generating a shared identity among members of the group.

Identity is closely linked to the constructivist perspective, which emphasizes that the characteristics of an actor influence that actor's policies in the realm of international relations. Moreover, identity can undergo changes, even after holding onto an old identity. These changes occur due to several factors: (1) differing views from other actors, (2) transitions in national leadership with differing political and economic directions from the previous administration, (3) the leadership style of national leaders, and (4) changes in the international environment. Given this, countries are compelled to adapt by forming new identities to facilitate smoother interactions with other nations.

As previously explained, the United States is a superpower that, alongside the Soviet Union, emerged victorious in World War II. This position of the United States became one of its key identities, specifically as a superpower. Furthermore, this position was reinforced by the establishment of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These institutions solidified the identity of the United States as a superpower and a founding member of four highly influential international regimes within the global system. 

In addition, after World War II, the United States and other Western countries began to focus on economic issues, emphasizing freedom, progress, globalization, cooperation, and, most importantly, human values. These are the values held by the United States and other Western nations, commonly referred to as liberal values. Liberalism is one of the Western ideologies that has become a defining identity for Western countries, particularly the United States. This identity dictates how the United States acts in its foreign policy. To achieve its economic and political gains, the United States engages in cooperative relations with other countries, whether through regional, bilateral, trilateral, or inter-regional partnerships. In these cooperative relations, the United States seeks to instill its liberal values to ensure that the policies of its partner nations do not hinder U.S. interests.

When the national interests of the United States are not met or are hindered due to a regime change or leadership shift in its partner countries, the United States often intervenes in the domestic affairs of these nations. The purpose is to instill liberal values that will, in turn, alter the direction of the policies of the leader of the partner country, with the expectation that these policies will benefit the United States and support its national interests. In several cases, the United States has been the most active country in intervening in various international issues, largely due to its identity as a superpower controlling global economics and military affairs. Furthermore, such interventions have contributed to the formation of a new identity for the United States as a nation known for intervening in the affairs of other countries. Countries that have frequently experienced U.S. interventions include Israel and Palestine, due to their ongoing conflict, Russia and Ukraine, during their war, China, Venezuela, South and North Korea during the Korean War, Iran, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Guatemala, Syria, Iraq, Taiwan and China in matters of reunification, and many more.

Intervention can be defined as a dictatorial interference by one country in the affairs of another, with the aim of altering or even maintaining certain conditions. Such interference may occur whether or not the intervening country has the right to do so, yet it remains connected to external freedom, territorial issues, or even the strength, superiority, and power held by the other nation. Naturally, this has significant implications for its position in the international arena. Starke presents three typologies of intervention: (1) internal intervention, where one country intervenes in the domestic affairs of another nation; (2) external intervention, where one country intervenes in the foreign affairs of another nation alongside other countries; (3) punitive intervention, which is an intervention undertaken as retaliation for losses incurred by the intervening nation. 

U.S. Intervention in Venezuela's Domestic Conflict in 2019 as a Representation of Its National Identity

Venezuela is a republic that was formerly a Spanish colony, located on the northern coast of South America along the Caribbean Sea. It is an independent nation in South America, bordered to the west by Colombia, to the east by Guyana, and to the south by Brazil. Venezuela spans an area of 912,050 km², with its capital being Caracas. Geopolitically, Venezuela is situated at the northwest tip of South America, with a coastline extending approximately 2,800 km. It is also home to Lake Maracaibo, which covers about 3,512 km², making it the largest lake in South America. Venezuela's complex history under U.S. influence is marked by the United States actively shaping its political processes, particularly through the promotion of liberal values across South America. The United States has substantial interests in Venezuela, primarily due to the country's vast oil reserves. Consequently, the U.S. has sought to assert its influence over Venezuela’s internal and external affairs to further its own national interests.

After the death of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, from cancer, the situation in Venezuela began to deteriorate, leading to various internal upheavals. This was evident in the collapse of many sectors that had thrived under Chávez's leadership. Following his death, a political transition ensued, causing political chaos, financial crisis, and an increase in violence, compounded by ineffective management in addressing these issues. Chávez had chosen Nicolás Maduro as his successor, and Maduro narrowly won the election, securing a victory by just 1.6% points over his opponent, Henrique Capriles. Maduro quickly consolidated his power, with the National Assembly granting him authority to implement his policies. However, there was one thing that Maduro could not manage during his presidency: the plummeting oil prices, which ultimately led to the collapse of Venezuela's economy. This situation worsened over time, as Maduro’s government also resorted to imprisoning journalists, preventing them from reporting on critical issues. These actions contributed to the further deterioration of Maduro’s reputation both domestically and internationally.

In light of this situation, Venezuela attracted the attention of other countries, particularly the United States, which supported the idea of a change in leadership. The U.S. backed Juan Guaidó as the candidate to replace Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela. As we know, the United States has long been keen on exploiting public diplomacy or soft power, not only to achieve its economic and political interests but also to contribute to the development of regions beyond its borders. Public diplomacy is a program focused on utilizing social media, which has been relatively underexplored, resulting in historians and experts knowing little about the international communication channels in that region. The goal of this program is to strengthen civil society, political parties, and fair elections in Latin America. Since then, the internet and social media have provided new opportunities for U.S. public diplomacy to support liberal politics, independent organizations, and resilient leaders in Latin America.

In its political diplomacy, the United States supported Juan Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela because Guaidó was seen as having moderate and democratic values, which could make Venezuela more cooperative with other countries, particularly the United States. Therefore, to facilitate cooperation between the U.S. and Venezuela, Donald Trump sought to achieve his interests by intervening to overthrow Maduro’s government. This support was likely related to Venezuela's vast oil wealth. As part of its intervention in Venezuela, the U.S. applied bilateral pressure by responding to the human rights crisis in Venezuela with its first sanctions as a strategy to control the country. These sanctions included an Executive Order, issued because the U.S. considered the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela to pose a threat to national security and U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. pressured Venezuela through two main actions: (1) Issuing a threat to Venezuela that the U.S. would carry out a military intervention, as announced by Trump during a UN Security Council meeting on August 11, 2017. (2) Implementing updates to the humanitarian sanctions under the executive order, which included a ban on all transactions with the Venezuelan government, specifically with the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

U.S. Political Interests in the Intervention of Venezuela's Domestic Conflict in 2019

 The United States is a country that adheres to the principles of democracy, viewing it as a powerful ideology that shapes the character and development of a nation. Democracy is a fundamental principle and a key issue in U.S. foreign policy. On the other hand, Nicolás Maduro is a moderate figure with a socialist background. Given this situation, the U.S. aims to use democracy as a strong tool to influence the international system, as the more countries that adopt democratic principles, the more allies the U.S. will have. This, in turn, makes it easier for the U.S. to legitimize its foreign policy decisions on the international stage. 

Democracy facilitates the United States in achieving both its economic and political interests. Therefore, the U.S. has consistently sought to overthrow Maduro, a figure seen as a socialist who could potentially indoctrinate his society. Moreover, the U.S.'s intervention in Venezuela is also driven by the desire to prevent the dominance of China and Russia, both of which adhere to communist ideologies. Additionally, another political interest involves the U.S.'s dependency on oil, as the U.S. is one of the countries that imports oil from Venezuela. 

U.S. Economic Interests in the Intervention of Venezuela's Domestic Conflict in 2019 

The United States' primary objective in establishing a partnership with Venezuela was to fulfill its own needs, particularly for oil. The U.S. requires large amounts of oil as an energy reserve to support its industrial processes. Over time, however, a shift in political direction occurred due to a change in leadership. This political shift began to hinder U.S. interests in Venezuela. When leadership transitioned from Hugo Chávez to Nicolás Maduro, the U.S.'s position in the context of cooperation with Venezuela weakened. This was because Maduro, as president, pursued a political direction that opposed U.S. hegemony and intervention in Venezuela.

In light of this, to reestablish its economic interests in Venezuela, which had previously been obstructed, the U.S. intervened by supporting Juan Guaidó, who was seen as more favorable to U.S. interests, as the new president of Venezuela. After Guaidó won the election, he implemented democratic principles and allowed U.S. oil companies to resume operations in Venezuela, improving the cooperation between the two countries.

Geopolitical and Energy Interests of the United States in the 2019 Venezuela Domestic Conflict Intervention

The ownership of oil resources in oil-producing countries has become a crucial element for the United States to secure and maintain. There are two key factors in energy geopolitics that play a significant role: (1) location of resources, which in the case of Venezuela refers to both the country’s vast oil reserves and its strategic position that facilitates the efficient transport of these resources; and (2) politics of states, which involves the interdependence and mutual reliance between countries, influencing the flow of resources and fostering political cooperation between nations. These two elements are critical to understanding the strategic concept that the U.S. applies to Venezuela and form the backdrop of its foreign policy in response to Venezuela’s presidential crisis. The U.S. involvement in Venezuela’s leadership conflict appears to be motivated by the desire to ensure a government that can maintain stable control over Venezuela’s natural resources, particularly oil, to meet U.S. energy needs. The political crisis in Venezuela thus becomes part of a broader U.S. strategy to maintain its hegemonic influence and secure its interests in the region.

.........................................................................................................................

The United States has not only intervened in Venezuela but has also been involved in nearly all international issues or events, consistently playing a role. Therefore, in my opinion, actions like intervention have become a new identity for the United States—an identity defined by intervening in the domestic affairs of other nations. One such intervention took place in the 2019 domestic conflict in Venezuela, where the U.S. sought to instill its democratic and liberal values into the leadership of Venezuela, aiming for policies that would align with and support U.S. interests, particularly in securing oil resources. Once again, this is not unique to Venezuela; in fact, the United States has a history of intervening in many countries around the world.