Is it correct for the United States to abduct Maduro?

The recent abduction of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, by Donald Trump has prompted a debate on the legality of such an action.

In Favor

• Those in favor of the abduction point to the organized crime enabled by Maduro’s regime.
• Others argue it is preferable for the U.S. to influence Venezuela rather than cede influence to China or Russia.
• Some, like Senator Marco Rubio, contend it would weaken the Communist regime in Cuba by removing a key ally.
• Still others believe that stabilizing Venezuela would reduce the flow of Venezuelan migrants to the United States.

Against

• Those against the abduction argue such unilateral actions normalize power grabs and violate national sovereignty.
• Others state that Trump’s actions disregard the U.S. Congress and therefore undermine democratic principles at home.

Yet if such an event were so clearly bad, why would Venezuelans abroad be celebrating?

Therefore, it appears that those opposing the abduction are often outsiders prioritizing abstract principles—like the integrity of international law or the precedent for world leaders—over the immediate welfare of the Venezuelan people.

This leads us to examine the nature and weakness of the current international system as a root cause of such crises.

The Destructive Cycle of Sanctions

The descent of countries into poverty, authoritarianism, or illicit economies often begins with civil conflict.

• Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam became Communist following their civil wars.
• A revolution is essentially a one-sided civil war, as seen in Iran’s shift to an Islamist state after 1979.

Sanctions Strengthen the Bad Actors

Before the Bretton Woods system (established in 1944), international measures typically ended with the conflict. For example, sanctions against Russia during its 1918 civil war were lifted after that civil war ended.

However, the post-Bretton Woods global financial system allows sanctions to continue indefinitely.

This starves sanctioned countries of economic resources, which paradoxically strengthens dictators by:

• crippling the opposition (the opposition became the opposition because they were weaker and so sanctions make them fatally much weaker)
• centralizing control over illicit economies (the dictator uses his stronger position to consolidate the essential parts of the economy)

North Korea faced partial sanctions starting in 1950, and Cuba faced a full embargo from 1962, policies that have helped lock their dictatorships in place.

A consistent modern pattern emerges: Civil War/Revolution → Indefinite Sanctions → Dictatorships → Entrenched Illicit State Activity as sustainable revenue model

The sanctioned countries resort to the illegal trade as an alternative to the financial system i.e. the illegal activity is the effect and not the cause. The cause is really the negative impositions done by the imposing countries.

This pattern is evident in Russia, where Biden’s broad financial sanctions have failed to halt the war in Ukraine and have actually strengthened Putin’s control by devastating the general economy and independent civil society.

• Had the US and Ukraine supported Prigozhin’s coup in 2023, the Ukraine war would have ended.

A World Government Is Better Than Blanket Sanctions

The optimal way to sanction a country is to granularly target the dictator, corrupt officials, or military officers directly. This requires an active, resource-intensive intelligence (spy) and law enforcement (police) network.

This approach is akin to placing a diseased person on a rigorous, strict, but nourishing diet of fruits, vegetables, and liquids with constant monitoring in order to starve the illness while strengthening the body.

To avoid this costly precision, sanctioning countries often choose blanket sanctions applied at ports and through the financial system.

• This is like starving the entire person to prevent them from spreading disease—a cruel and counterproductive strategy.

The proper solution is not a sanctions regime facilitated by the global financial system, but a World Government (WG) with legitimate global law enforcement capabilities.

Such an entity could intervene in fraudulent elections and civil wars early to prevent state collapse, acting not as an invader but as a restorer of peace, order, and economic welfare.

This would require a world constitution, which in turn depends on fellow-feeling between nations. Laws are based on morals, which are ultimately rooted in shared sentiments.

• An Islamist commits violence because he has been taught that it is moral
• A capitalist destroys a forest for profit because he has been taught that making a lot of money is moral

Currently, the European Union embodies this principle, forged from a shared aversion to war after the horrors of World War II.

The US Is Repairing Problems It Helped Create

The US taking control of Venezuela would mean solving a problem it helped create through its sanctions policy. Consequently, the U.S. taxpayer would shoulder the cost of rebuilding Venezuela to:

• Reduce illegal immigration to the U.S.
• Curtail the flow of drugs transiting through Venezuela.

But all of this could have been avoided by not sanctioning Venezuela excessively in the first place.

This parallels the US effort to rebuild Afghanistan, from which it ultimately withdrew in 2021 – the US and the Soviets could have worked together to stamp away the Islamism that destroyed priceless Buddhist monuments.

If the U.S. takes over Venezuela, it must commit to staying and investing resources to uplift the Venezuelan people, just as it spent over $2 trillion in Afghanistan.

While such a policy failed in Cuba, South Vietnam, and Iran, it succeeded in fostering stability and growth in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.

The outcome hinges on sustained, strategic commitment, and more importantly, the unseen undercurrent or flow of morals in the country.

• This implies that the underlying morals in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines were better than those in Cuba, South Vietnam, and Iran (the study of the dynamics of morality has been neglected after the 18th century).

The commitment to rebuild Venezuela’s economy, as well as its moral system which would likely follow the US Christian system, would likely then require the Republicans to stay in power, mirroring the dictators that Trump is going against.