The President of Venezuela has been captured in the course of a military operation conducted by the United States of America. At the moment, it is uncertain whether the regime has fallen. And the consequences are unpredictable.
The Church condemned the principle of non-intervention in the Syllabus—so at first glance, it is not a matter of rejecting any intervention as a principle. The reason for the condemnation was that the principle of non-intervention reflected and embodied liberalism in international relations. The late Alberto Ruiz de Galarreta often reminded readers of this in his journalistic writings. The principle of non-intervention was adopted in the United Nations Charter. Over the past few decades, however, a new paradigm has taken hold: the so-called duty of humanitarian intervention—which also reflects liberal ideology in the international sphere by placing human rights as the foundation of such interventions. Both «principles» have since coexisted in international law. A difficult situation, then.
The United States has made arrogance the core of its foreign policy. Always, or at least, for as long as it has been able to. Because arrogance implies not only will but also power, as the word itself suggests. We will not speak now of Ukraine (and Russia), Palestine, Iran, or Syria. In all these cases, the behavior of the United States, under different administrations (as they call them), has ignored international positive law and diplomatic channels. Sometimes openly, with presidents like Trump; sometimes more discreetly, with some of his predecessors. But positive law can be contrary to natural law and to the demands of justice. It is not, therefore, a matter of raising the flag of positivism, but that of justice, which normally includes respect for the law.
The same applies to the current case. The United States attempted a coup against Hugo Chávez, which radicalized his policies. After his death, his successor, Nicolás Maduro, crudely revealed his dependencies—and suspicions of fraud. Nor does it seem that the Common Good was being promoted by the Venezuelan regime.
Many Venezuelans have suffered greatly: how can we not stand in solidarity with them? But can the United States intervene in the manner it has? Can it continue acting as a capricious and arbitrary global policeman? The U.S. president’s press conference could not be more expressive—or troubling. The opposition to Maduro is also not worthy of support. As here, the right-wing world—both cowardly and bold—celebrating ecstatically, is once again showing its lack of sound judgment.
There will be time, calmly, to further examine and perhaps refine the above reflections.
Agencia FARO
Deje el primer comentario