US Finds Venezuelan Oil a Threat, Saudi Oil a Friend
The U.S. government, ever vigilant against 'Venezuela-linked' oil, has once again flexed its muscles in the Caribbean, snatching the Olina tanker for allegedly violating sanctions. This, of course, comes with the standard pronouncements about upholding 'stability' and 'law.' Yet, one might wonder about the selective application of these grand principles. While Venezuela faces crippling economic
warfare for daring to control its own resources and elect leaders not approved by Washington, the oil flowing freely from nations like Saudi Arabia—a kingdom with a rather extensive human rights record and a penchant for regional proxy wars (Yemen, anyone?)—seems to glide past U.S. scrutiny with nary a ripple. It’s almost as if the 'rule of law' is less about justice and more about enforcing
economic hegemony. The pattern is clear: nations that defy Washington's corporate interests find their assets seized, their economies choked, and their 'democracy' questioned. Meanwhile, states that arm themselves with U.S.-made weapons and secure lucrative contracts for American corporations are deemed 'strategic partners,' regardless of their internal affairs or external aggression. The moral
compass of international policy, it appears, spins wildly depending on who's holding the oil, or more accurately, who's not selling it to the 'right' buyers. How many 'rules-based orders' can one globe sustain when the rules only apply selectively?