I have been getting a lot of nasty tweets on my opposition to Trump’s invasion of Venezuela so I will explain why I believe it is a bad idea. Like almost everyone in the democratic world, I agree Maduro is a corrupt brutal dictatorship and will not shed a single tear over him being removed. I hope for sake of Venezuelan people this works out, but if history is any guide, I fear it will not result in legitimate democratic winner becoming president. Instead if US troops sent will be a quagmire like Iraq or if not will involve installing a puppet dictatorship who will give US whatever they want much like was case in Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973.
The best thing for Venezuela would be for US to leave and turn it over to UN to monitor elections and ensure whomever wins becomes president. For Maduro, best solution is turn him over to the ICC and have him prosecuted there rather than in a US court. Universal US jurisdiction is quite dangerous and we should not support extraterritoriality of jurisdiction of any country. Instead rule breakers should be punished under laws of international organizations which country is part of. Venezuela unlike US is member to ICC so that is appropriate place to have him tried.
My opposition to invasion is fact it violates international law and sets a dangerous precedent. Likewise I don’t believe this is about liberating Venezuelan people but about helping US oil corporations get rich off their oil while leaving crumbs to Venezuelans. Monroe doctrine with Trump Corollary is about US control and dominance of Western hemisphere. It means ensuring every country in Western hemisphere serves as a vassal state to US and as a Canadian, this is downright terrifying. Conservatives celebrating this are a disgrace and show they put interest of US ahead of Canada.
Section 2(4) of UN charter states unequivocally it is illegal to enter a sovereign country unless done in legitimate self defence or authorized by UN security council. Attack on Venezuela did neither so it is a clear violation of international law. Some claim UN is useless and while UN has many flaws, the alternative is much worse. Allowing countries to ignore international law creates law of jungle where might is right. Putin can now justify his invasion of Ukraine or any other European country he so fancies taking. Likewise China can use this precedent to invade Taiwan and remove their government. It’s easy to say this helps Venezuelan people, but one must look at big picture and realize breaking down international rules we established post World War II creates a much more dangerous world. It means middle powers like Canada are at the whims of the superpowers and no longer can rely on our sovereignty being safe. All the rationals created why this is okay ignore that once one does it, any world leader can make up any phony excuse to invade a country they wish. You either follow international law all the time or you risk chaos.
It is also clear Trump is not doing this because he cares about Venezuelan people. Fact he even stated it is about oil and notified oil corporations but not congress before this shows this is about US oil corporations getting back oil that was nationalized earlier. Exactly same thing US did in Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. Investing abroad involves risks and countries have right to nationalize companies if they so choose. I no fan of oil nationalization, but believe that is decision of each sovereign country to make and no one else. I would have hoped after Conservatives made mistake of supporting Iraq war in 2003 (which I regrettably initially did) they would learn from this, but I guess not. Fact is almost every US intervention post World War II has been a failure, so thinking this would be different is very naïve. It’s basically doing same thing over again and expecting different results.
But if some thinking it ends here, listen to rhetoric of those in administration. He is suggesting will intervene in Colombia if re-elect a leftist government, Stephen Miller’s wife, Katie Miller tweeted Greenland next and already used threat of aid to influence elections in Argentina and Honduras. Donroe doctrine is Western hemisphere is under US control and any government that doesn’t fall in line with US could be next. This should scare every Canadian as we are in Western Hemisphere and as a sovereign country, idea of being a vassal state to US is terrifying. Sovereign countries have right to decide how they are governed and US has zero right to interfere. Their jurisdiction ends where their borders do. As for claiming don’t want Chinese or Russian influence, that only works if actual evidence they are planning to attack US. Every sovereign country has right to decide who it wishes to associate with. I oppose dividing world up into spheres of influence and instead support right of all sovereign countries to decide whom they wish to ally with. This was same reason Putin used to justify invasion of Ukraine as felt it belonged under Russian sphere of influence irrespective of what Ukrainians wanted. This is why Canada must develop a plan in case US invades and if possible develop nuclear weapons, not to use but as a deterrence. US is not a reliably ally or friend, but rather biggest threat to our sovereignty. Even if one is on political right and dislikes left, allowing a sovereign country to decide how a country is governed is very dangerous. I don’t want Canada to take a sharp turn to left, but if we do someday, it is up to us as Canadians to deal with it, not US. Even if a radical left NDP type won someday, I would oppose US intervention as I oppose any foreign power be it China, Russia or US meddling in our internal affairs. I would likewise feel same if a far right government won in a Canada and a Democrat administration tried to intervene. This is not blind opposition to Trump from me as I would say same thing if a Democrat did this.
Of the political parties in Canada, I felt BQ and ironically PPC (shocking I would agree with them, but then again Marjorie Taylor Greene and Marine LePen I also agreed with on this) were closest to accurate. NDP expressed my personal feelings but I get from a practical standpoint why Carney couldn’t take as harsh a stance. I feel Carney took right approach of saying glad Maduro gone but also international law must always be followed. I hope eventually a stronger condemnation comes out if US persists but it will be much more effective if done in concert with our allies than alone so fine waiting until we get there. Stance of Pierre Poilievre was totally unacceptable. His saying long live freedom down with socialism was very childish and not something anyone wishing to become PM should be tweeting. I get his wife is from Venezuela and may be happy, but leader of opposition has job to represent interest of Canada. Besides I suspect even if his wife wasn’t Venezuela, he would say same as this fits pattern with his past approach. Its why in these tough times so glad Carney is our PM.
afiscalconservativepointofview 
If you are getting nasty tweets about respecting the rule of law, including international law, my own take on that is you need to hang out with more different people online than the ones you are currently dialoguing with. Debate and diversity of opinion is great; without it none of us would ever evolve our thinking or change our minds when maybe we should. But nasty objections to caring about international law and respecting other countries’ sovereignty do not constitute legitimate debate or attempts to think hard never mind think well. Maybe you just need more time with those who actually want to listen to each other and develop constructive ideas – which you are so good at doing – and less time with those who think we are served by a world carved up by thugs in suits.
LikeLike
Vast majority of them are those who don’t use real name and don’t even follow so guessing many are bots. Lets remember who owns X and generally I find tweets where I take a conservative point of view get legitimate debate and few trolls. But when take a progressive approach get flooded with them so I think has more to do with algorithms and bots. This is what makes me worried about Alberta referendum this fall and why Smith should drop it. I fear province will be flooded with foreign based trolls spewing lies to push it. In Europe, far right parties I noticed saw big surge after Elon Musk took over X so I think billionaires like him who want to promote far right are a real danger to democracy.
Of my legitimate followers, I had good debates and found largely broke along ideological lines with most Conservatives thinking it was a good idea and most Liberals and NDP thinking it was a bad idea. Interestingly enough in UK, right was more neutral while in France, their right much like did in 2003 for Iraq War condemned it unlike our right who wanted us to follow George W. Bush into his ill advised war. Just a shame our right hasn’t learned from that mistake. At least I have and won’t make that again.
LikeLike
Yes you are a Lunn so you are a learner by nature! I think everyone in our family values good debate whether we change each other’s minds or not . I worry about bots too. Which is why I am trying to spend more time with people face to face and limit my time online. I don’t always agree with everything you say, but your opinions are well researched and thought out, which makes them worth listening to. As for X – pfffffffttttttt why even bother???
Tricia
LikeLike
I block and ignore but still good to know how many out there and impact as maybe won’t impact me, but are impacting many less informed. I have taken an AI course so I can easily pick out which ones are AI generated vs. real humans and can tell you a lot are AI generated. This suggests to me there are some bad actors out there who want to spread falsehoods. Bad actors globally won’t win militarily; they will win through information wars and convincing public to fall for their terrible ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you, there are definitely plenty of bad actors out there using bots and lies to spread very bad ideas that serve their own ends, lies that do not serve the people who consume them. In my view, the current US president is a prime example of such an actor, along with Putin, Xi, and too many others who use info wars to serve themselves above all. A very good journalist we both know well told me 30 years ago exactly what you just said. Which is why I keep supporting reliable journalism from credible news sources.
LikeLike
I agree and problem is many have short attention spans and like quick hits so that is what has enabled bad actors on social media whereas quality journalism involves in depth analysis, not 10 second soundbytes.
LikeLike
Lots to unpack but first, sorry you are getting nasty tweets. X is a sewer but it turns out the sewer is the best place to get the real opinion pieces from around the world.
Trump won’t take Greenland. He hasn’t the time before everything hits the fan for him. Venezuela was easy; he got in, grabbed Maduro and his wife, and got out very quickly with no American casualties. That is all he needs if VP Rodriguez cooperates with him, gives him access to oil and whatever else he needs.
I am not sure Maduro belongs before the International Criminal Court. He has been indicted on narco-terrorism charges which the US court is competent to prosecute. The ICC has a rule that if a nation involved has a court with competent jurisdiction that can prosecute the offender, the ICC then has no jurisdiction, provided the prosecution proceeds. Maybe upon completion of his sentence in a US prison, if he survives it, Maduro could be deported to the custody of the Hague.
Poilievre’s response was almost identical to the political slogan of Argentina Libertarian leader, Javier Milei: “Long Live Freedom, dammit!” He is not a Trump fan at all.
I also must disagree about international law too. Sure, the UN could go in and supervise elections in Venezuela; it would be better than the Americans doing it, certainly. But there is no guarantee UN administration would be any more honest or any less politically motivated to bias.
Sadly, the UN has showed itself to be corrupted by breaking its own rules and not sanctioning UNRWA or even prosecuting offenders who took part, with their children, in the October 7, 2023 slaughter of innocents in Israel.
So, while it was or possibly still is a good idea, the current configuration of international courts is not working. Part of the problem is the judges that sit on the bench are from many different nations with many different systems of law. The 24 NATO members of the UN favour systems of law based in judeo-christian values whereas the 57 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) members of the UN favour systems of law based in the Islamic values taught to his followers by the Prophet Muhammad. Even the various European members of the international courts bring with them a bias in favour of the systems of law that rules in their nation. So, influence, not law, becomes the rule for judgement at the international courts. And that corrupts them. Unless all judges share the same meaning for legal terms, and they don’t, they can’t fairly hear evidence in any case brought before them. The judges do not share the same judicial values or history or culture and cannot therefore fairly rule.
Unless we believe that might makes right, that the dominant culture is right based solely on numbers, then we need to develop a shared system of law with share foundational belief systems and I don’t think anyone knows yet how to do that.
The world is rapidly changing. New global alliances are being formed and the old world order is crumbling; we aren’t going back. Hopefully (fingers crossed because our species always goes into these sorts of plate-shifting changes blindly) what evolves is a better world.
LikeLike
I agree international law has many flaws but as Winston Churchill once said, democracy is worst system except all the others and I believe same is true with international law. It has less to do with thinking international law is great and more alternative is worse.
LikeLike