Venezuela and the Island of Melos...

In one of the thriller novels adapted into film in the 1970s, the president of an African country who refused to allow a greedy Western company to seize control of the country’s mineral resources was targeted. The company hired an experienced former colonel to eliminate the head of state. That colonel organized a group of former mercenaries for the operation. The future leader who would advance the company’s interests was already in the bag. Whether this standby, hired leader could take the presidential seat depended on the successful completion of the military operation.

The U.S. operation against Venezuela reminded me of this novel. This time, the country in the crosshairs was not in Africa, but in Latin America. Venezuela had nationalized its oil resources partially in 1976 and on a much broader scale in 2007. As a result of this nationalization, or expropriation, many American companies were stripped of their privileged and highly profitable arrangements.

Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured in the presidential palace and abducted in a U.S. military operation, the exact details of which are still unclear. The fact that the door of the vehicle transporting him was opened and displayed on the streets of New York was an act of humiliation directed at the Venezuelan people through Maduro himself.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who tries to present the private interests of oil companies as “national security interests,” says that Venezuela’s oil belongs to the United States and that these resources will be taken back and operated by major corporations. Moreover, Trump has stated that the U.S. will govern Venezuela for a temporary period, and he has threatened that if the vice president who replaced Maduro does not do what Washington wants, his fate will be far worse.

The “Venezuela example” evokes the ancient “Athenian Empire,” which held that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. “Venezuela” is a modern reflection of the small “island of Melos,” which was massacred in one episode of the 27-year “Athenian-Spartan Wars” that began in 431 BCE and ended with Athens’ defeat in 404 BCE.

Thucydides, who witnessed these wars as an Athenian general, included in his History—written, as he hoped, as a “lesson for all time”—a dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians. The people of Melos presented a series of arguments to convince the Athenians that remaining neutral in the Athenian-Spartan war was the best course both for themselves and for Athens. The Athenians, however, demanded that Melos choose between submission and tribute to Athens or total destruction. Athens was powerful; Melos was weak, a small island.

For the Athenians, the issue was neither justice nor morality nor religion. It was about power. According to the Athenians, Melian neutrality would be perceived by the members of the Athenian-led Delian League as a sign of weakness. While the Melians argued that surrendering without a fight would be shameful, the Athenians replied, “Think only of survival.” When the Melians appealed to fairness, the Athenians insisted that justice, rights, and law applied only between equal powers. In the end, the Athenians occupied Melos, killed the men, enslaved the women and children, and settled their own colonists on the island.

In its great power struggle with Sparta, neutrality was unacceptable to Athens. By remaining neutral, the Melians were effectively inviting elimination by Athens. Having failed to learn the lesson that “pride comes before the fall,” the Athenians mobilized a massive army to seize the distant island of Sicily as well. The invasion ended in a catastrophic defeat. Wealthy Melians who survived went on to help finance Spartan campaigns against Athens. In the end, the “Athenian Empire” was erased from history.

The “American Monroe Doctrine,” which viewed the Western Hemisphere as a backyard into which no extra-continental power would be allowed to enter, originally targeted European powers such as Britain, France, and Spain in the 19th century. The “Trump version” of this doctrine, however, targets other powers—chiefly China and Russia—that compete with the United States in terms of military and economic capability.

The issue is not just Venezuela and oil. Trump is also threatening Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, and even talking about seizing Greenland. If the United States, under the Trump administration, is returning to its pre–Cold War colonial policies in Latin America and preparing once again to cut the region’s veins, there will undoubtedly be consequences and blowback.