Tensions in the Caribbean: Venezuela and U.S. naval deployment

Over the past few weeks, tensions between the United States and Venezuela have been steadily increasing. The Trump administration has long accused Nicolas Maduro of involvement in drug trafficking networks to smuggle drugs into US territory. In early August, Washington raised the reward for Maduro's capture to $50 million and has subsequently increased its pressure on the Chavista regime by sending several warships in the vicinity of Venezuelan waters. Is this deployment a first step towards a military strike or is it intended to provoke Maduro's downfall with this projection of power alone?

Faced with the pressure exerted by Donald Trump, which has been joined in parallel by other European countries through the imposition of sanctions, Maduro has raised the rhetoric and challenged the US president in his pretensions to bring him to justice. In response to the repeated incitements, the US Navy has in recent days carried out a deployment near the Venezuelan coasts, the largest mobilization of naval means in the Caribbean since the end of the Cold War.

The US Navy has so far mobilized units of the Amphibious Readiness group (ARG) from Iwo Jima (specifically, the LHD Iwo Jima and the LPDs San Antonio and Fort Lauderdale, along with the more than 2,000 embarked Marines of Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) No. 22), three Arleigh class destroyers and (quite possibly) a submarine.

The Venezuelan Ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, declared in a meeting with the UN University Secretary that "this is a massive propaganda operation to justify what experts call a kinetic action - that is, a military intervention against a sovereign and independent country that poses no threat to anyone".

However, it is worth remembering that naval power provides a much greater versatility and flexibility of response than that offered by land or air power (especially because of the possibility of the former to combine the latter two with embarked aviation and marines). In the following lines we review those characteristics that make naval power such a fundamental asset, following what we wrote a few months ago purpose the deployment of several units and staff of the Spanish Navy to provide attendance during the Dana crisis.

Naval power and its uses

As we pointed out back then:

The inherent flexibility of naval platforms and their consequent ability to switch from one mission statement subject to another at very short notice make navies, and naval power in general, one of the most effective instruments of national security. This is very significant at a time when the effects of a global return to skill among great powers are showing themselves at sea (for example, with the Red Sea crisis).

While the primary purpose of warships is the conduct of war at sea or from the sea, they can perform a wide range of tasks if required. These include maritime surveillance and reconnaissance, diplomatic visits to foreign ports, joint naval exercises with allies and partners, and humanitarian attendance and disaster relief (HADR).

The fundamental functions of naval power can be broadly divided into three: military, police and diplomatic. This was illustrated by Ken Booth at the end of the 1970s, establishing a classification that, although several authors have subsequently developed and adapted with different nuances, is still fully valid.

The military function is the primary and most representative, especially in war contexts. Naval forces have the function of protecting their own commerce and attacking the enemy's, in addition to supporting land forces through the projection of naval power over land by means of (among others) amphibious operations or bombardment of strategic targets on land.

The policing function is carried out on a permanent basis both in times of peace and in times of conflict, protecting the waters near the national coasts against attacks of any subject, and preventing the enemy from carrying out operations such as those mentioned above. This function can be carried out by the navy, but often corresponds to other services such as the Coast Guard, with vessels designed to operate in the littoral (shallower waters, greater speed of movement and, if armament is carried, lighter than that of large destroyers and frigates).

The diplomatic function, often referred to in the English-speaking world as 'gunboat diplomacy', involves the employment warships to contribute to the development and implementation of a nation's foreign policy. Activities within this function range from deployments to specific regions to 'show the flag'sample of the power of the nation in question) to port visits and joint maneuvers with other nations to strengthen ties with them. For cases involving showing the flag, the ultimate purpose is usually related to deterrence; the ability to make the other state or entity see that any hostile action it might consider taking will not succeed, making it clear that the cost of executing it will outweigh the benefits it might provide in the event of success. Warships, especially large platforms such as aircraft carriers and amphibious ships (but also destroyers and frigates) are significant symbols of national power and status.

The US Navy and Venezuela

Undoubtedly, recent movements in the region are reminiscent of Operation Just Cause carried out between December 1989 and January 1990, the military action by which U.S. forces removed dictator Manuel Noriega from power. However, there are some aspects related to Operation Just Cause that make it somewhat different from the current status (at least for the moment). In 1989, a U.S. soldier was killed shortly before the operation was launched, an event that is often seen as the trigger for the operation. In addition, the Noriega regime made a formal declaration of war against Washington on December 15, five days before the start of the operation. Maduro, on the other hand, has not made public any similar statement, nor is he expected to do so.

On the contrary, in the case of the events taking place in the Caribbean, Washington's decision to deploy its naval forces falls fundamentally within the last of the functions of naval power described above. The precedent of Operation Just Cause is, undoubtedly, an element that contributes to strengthen Washington's deterrence message. As has already been stated by the White House itself, Washington reservation the right to carry out any operation to eliminate the threat to its national security posed by the cartels that smuggle drugs into the country.

But despite the panic caused by a deployment that, as we say, is the largest seen in a long time, the real possibility of a full-scale invasion is highly unlikely given the issue of assets currently in the region. Even more so when President Trump came to the White House proclaiming his intention to end wars, not start them. The central purpose of such an operation should be understood as yet another example of the aforementioned 'gunboat diplomacy', with which the Americans already have plenty of experience as the world's largest naval power they have been for more than six decades. A notice for Maduro and his policies of repression against civil service examination political civil service examination and his rhetoric in recent weeks.

As some analysts have already underlined, in view of such a status ,three possible scenarios are open: an internal fracture of the regime, the exile of Maduro due to the imminent fear of being arrested and direct military intervention by the United States (perhaps only with some selective attack). Although it is true that the mere fact that the assets described above have been mobilized in the region shows that a possible military intervention (even a "lightning" one) is still on the table, this is the least likely of the three. Especially when the size of the current force is not sufficient to be able to guarantee the successful completion of such an operation. As has been pointed out, such an operation would face the possible diplomatic and political reaction of other countries. It is also possible, however, that none of this will take place and that the U.S. ships will eventually be withdrawn without any regime change in Caracas.

Although the option of a limited military intervention cannot be entirely ruled out, the role of the naval deployment in the region should be understood as a strong statement and a warning to the Venezuelan president, which ultimately written request seeks to promote a regime change in the country. This seems to be suggested by the recent testimony of Secretary of State Rubio, framework the Venezuelan military forces of the importance of their role in the event of a possible collapse of the current regime.

The force deployed is not the force required to invade

It remains, of course, to follow the evolution of events, but suffice it to recall that naval power goes far beyond purely military functions. The force deployed in the Caribbean is more than significant, but it is not the force required for an operation against Maduro and his close circle, nor are there conclusive indications that this is the main option on the table for the Americans.

Naval power provides a unique flexibility that air or land power cannot compete with. The ability to move, coupled with the powerful symbolism of large warships, has historically favored the employment naval forces for diplomatic and deterrent purposes.

Gonzalo Vázquez is a researcher at GASS, manager of the 'Marium' program.