Table of Contents
Simon O’Connor
Husband, step-father, foster dad, and longtime student of philosophy and history. Also happen to be a former politician, including chairing New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee.
The capture by American forces of now former Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, raises a host of complicated issues. Right from the outset, we wrestle with simply finding the correct description concerning his removal from the country. Was it capture or was it kidnapping? Was it an arrest or an illegal act? A military invasion or a targeted extraction?
We also have all the weird and wonderful contradictions developing, one being the American “No Kings” protestors – who fret over the Trump presidency – who are now upset that a socialist tyrant has been removed from power. Simultaneously, we have the likes of Hamas condemning the United States for taking Maduro hostage. The irony cannot be lost on them, or any sane observer, that this Islamic terrorist group remains in possession of an Israeli hostage, nor had any concerns about taking hundreds of hostages (and killing well over a thousand people) only two short years ago.
These initial observations aside, the situation is complicated and complex and there are so many angles one could explore. It is not straightforward as some media commentators, political figures, and academics are making out. These are the ones quickly and narrowly decrying it simply illegal, an act of aggression, a dangerous precedent and so on. Similarly, we have American hawks who celebrate the action as raw US power and a president acting decisively.
Each of these comments are correct to some degree yet insufficient alone to explain or justify what happened. We must also wait and see how this all pans out over the coming days, weeks, and months. If there is a peaceful transition of power to a more democratically footed Venezuela, then many will see the recent events as a success. If the path resembles the trajectory we are all too familiar with from Iraq to Afghanistan, Libya to Somalia, then this will just be another sad chapter in the United States’ (in particular) global policing and regime change failures.
What has struck me most however are the many arguments that effectively make a moral equivalence between various countries, political systems, and leaders. Put simply, it’s a position that effectively says all countries political systems are morally equivalent and their leaders are legitimate by virtue of being the leader, regardless of how they came to power (or hold on to it).
This moral equivalence is on full display as various commentators decry any action against someone such as Maduro. Their argument is ultimately reduced to – he’s the leader of the country; the system of government they have is just what it is; our systems are just different, and we (the wider world) should not really interfere beyond, perhaps, the odd UN statement or wagging finger.
This equivalence is also currently on display when we consider the near-silence from democratic leaders, academics, and activists around what is happening currently in Iran. Why would democracies such as our own, not be willing to speak up more confidently in support of those people seeking freedom and basic human rights?
The answer is moral equivalence and a Western world (in particular) that has lost confidence in itself, its views, norms, and moral outlook.
It will not surprise readers, but I am not a moral relativist. I strongly believe that we can determine what is right and wrong, good and bad. It’s not easy or always clear cut, but as humans we can observe what leads to a free and flourishing life while also seeing what harms the human spirit.
I’ve written and spoken around this before, notably that if we believe in democracy, we should want to see democracies flourish around the world. If you truly believe in human rights, then you want to see those rights for all humans – not simply in our own country. Consequently, when we have despotic socialist regime in the likes of Venezuela, then we should not be upset when its leadership falls. Equally, when a democracy such as Hong Kong is crushed, we should view this as a tragedy.
It is ironic, if not telling, that tens of thousands of Venezuelans are currently on the streets celebrating while many Western leaders and academics join other despotic regimes in condemning what happened.
Which brings us to the crux of the question – should democracies act against regimes such as Venezuela? It is clear form the US’s intervention that they can, and remarkably so, from a military point of view.
But should they?
I think the answer is ultimately yes, but with caveats and nuance. Moral equivalence should not be replaced with moral arrogance, where democratic nations with military might go running about the world pursuing regime change. I mentioned earlier some examples where this has gone badly awry. But if there is an opportunity to bring freedom, human rights, and economic revival to a country by removing its despotic leadership, then I think there are grounds and good arguments to support it.
Of course this is not black and white, but nor is issuing endless statements about ‘the rules-based order’ or hosting diplomatic roundtables which have achieved nothing for the Venezuelan people. Are those currently complaining in the West happy to sit on the sidelines chattering, while other humans suffer because destiny has the latter living in a country run by corrupt autocrats? Must our approach only ever be words and never actions in support of values we should see as universally important – human rights, freedom, liberty, and economic sufficiency.
I shed no tears that another socialist dictator – with a violent history, no respect for human rights, and who destroyed a once prosperous country – is now in prison. I just pray that his removal leads to the wider change that Venezuela so desperately needs.
This article was originally published by On Point.
