The recent abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by U.S. military forces
has left most of the world condemning the blatant violations of international law and the long-
standing international order left by post-World War II era guiding norms. While framed by the
United States as a law enforcement operation, international governance bodies like the United
Nations have said that the U.S. violated the U.N. Charter, territorial and political sovereignty, and
has undermined trust, diplomacy and the principles of engagement.
Leaders throughout LATAM have called out the U.S. government for creating
regional instability and insecurity and a potential refugee crisis. In addition, presidents
throughout LATAM and the Caribbean have denounced statements by senior White House
officials that undermine regional sovereignty and autonomy and promote a renewed and
reinvigorated Monroe Doctrine approach to the region.
While the actions by the United States should be examined under the scrutiny of
international law, the escalation – or intentional provocation – of conflict should give us pause to
consider the wide-ranging implications for the region, including within U.S. borders. From the
perspective of conflict resolution, bilateral relations based on hostility, aggression, and the
imposition of power and dominance by one side will always and inevitably assure a deeper
entrenchment of positions, prolonged conflict and a likely worsening of relations.
Whether its individual neighbors or neighboring countries, where there is no respect for
autonomy (of people or peoples), no meaningful dialogue can ensue. The U.S.’s actions seem to
belie its belief that “might makes right” and dominance is the goal, rather than peace or stability.
That position significantly misreads history and the long-term effectiveness of such a posture
(not to mention the illegality of actions associated with that view).
Sustained aggression by one country over another has never worked out well for either
state. One state trying to control another’s population, resources, territory and political processes
led in many ways to the creation of the United Nations and other regional political and juridical
bodies. It is precisely because the international community rejected the politics of colonization,
dominance and occupation that a new international legal and diplomatic order was created, one
based on peace, security and stability. Those principles drive the belief that engagement,
dialogue and diplomacy are far more superior vehicles for driving change – of any kind – than
imposition, violence, and control. Time and time again history has shown us that committed and
respectful engagement has brought about the most stability and prosperity for all, not just some.
At a moment when tensions are at peak and conflict is being openly promised and
advocated for, it is time for civil society to remind our leaders that conflict waged in our name
only compromises our peace and well-being, along with those of our families, neighbors,
colleagues, friends, and loved ones domestically and abroad. While conflict is inevitable, the
adamant insistence, provocation, and incitement of it is antithetical to those who believe peace is
the human right of all (as is established under international law). Negotiating conflict inherently
means decentering your needs and considering those of the collective, or at a minimum the other.
The politics of aggression are not compatible with true conflict resolution. It is time we demand
better.
Leave a Reply