8 ms·

Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact. The strong do what they can and the weak

by jyscao 8mo ago

Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Yizahi 8mo ago
The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly). Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  You're misunderstanding the analogy. The US's operation in Venezuela was itself a violation of international law, which the international community widely condemned and many countries wish they could have stopped. But there's no button they can push to make the US return Maduro, just as there's no button anyone can push to make China free Jimmy Lai. The only options are a variety of escalatory steps which implicate the relationship between one's own country and China as a whole.
  - nradov 8mo ago
    Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      The UN Charter is a rather unambiguous one.
    - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
      The US agreed in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which they ratified on July 1945, that they would refrain from the use of force against the political independence of any state. The reason you rarely see people cite the exact provision is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
    - junaru 8mo ago
      > operation Putin has one too.
    - dragonwriter 8mo ago
      > Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate? Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
      - spwa4 8mo ago
        And how are you supposed to act against states that openly violate international law? In Venezuela's case, law they explicitly agreed to uphold. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v... E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention. Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals. And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse. So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway? Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point? I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
- FpUser 8mo ago
  >"despite that the only person to suffer " Actually they killed whole bunch of people. And according to POTUS they're currently running the country so cut the bullshit please.
  - Yizahi 8mo ago
    Who "they"? If you want to say that this operation was completely botched and there was no quality improvement for the regular Venezuela citizens, then yes, i would agree completely. and international law also suffered as a result. At the same time it is also true that Maduro deserved to be smuggled out, tried and shot. By any possible law or moral standard of any country in the world. He is a horrible criminal even by known public facts. So these things are true at the same time. Same with China, if anyone would decide to intervene there, it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
    - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
      > it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that. Clearly, a weasel take on the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine. According to that new take two wrongs can be good and bad simultaneously, there is no easy clear answer, so any additional wrongs mustn't be called "wrongs", they must be called "maybe-rights". Very clever.../s
      - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
        Interesting, previous comment downvoted with no explanation. A sitting president can depict a former president and his wife as apes, but comments on HN are held to a much higher standard. Homework assignment: What is going to happen if Nazi-like propaganda (for example) can use colorful language but its detractors are only allowed to voice polite disagreement? What would the result of that be?
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world That's just what they told you to justify taking their oil
  - mvdtnz 8mo ago
    What are you getting at here? That more people suffered in Venezuala? Or that Maduro is a swell fella?
    - croes 8mo ago
      That nothing really changed for the people of Venezuela
  - roncesvalles 8mo ago
    >taking their oil That's what Trump told you to sound badass and edgy. His advisors might have a more complicated rationale that's harder to explain to the public than a single 3-letter word.
    - tkel 8mo ago
      Foreign policy of the US has always been about orchestrating coups to create passive client states for US capitalists more efficiently extract natural resources, going back to 1953 in Iran. Only difference with Trump is he has done away with pretenses. He says the quiet part out loud. He says things like "we want the minerals in Ukraine", and then negotiates a mineral deal. He talks about conquering Panama, Greenland, Canada. He is an unabashed imperialist. It's been at least 70 years of this happening, catch up already. And it goes back even further, to the US controlling the Philippines in 1898, and the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
    - coldtea 8mo ago
      Trump? The US has been doing it for over 100 years. Trump is just the latest figurehead, it was oil and other resources all along.
- onlypassingthru 8mo ago
  Pro tip: Try to get the facts straight before commenting. "There was a lot of death on the other side, unfortunately. But a lot of Cubans were killed yesterday trying to protect him," Trump said.[0] [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-details-on-the-covert-operation-to-capture-maduro/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-detail...
  - Yizahi 8mo ago
    That's true. But the point still stands. People are outraged even for a small number of cartel criminals shot. Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. The count would be in millions.
    - jyscao 8mo ago
      >Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. My original point is very much meant to counter absurd hypotheticals like these. No other sovereign nation on Earth at the current point in time would ever dare to "liberate" China, because this is no longer the 19th century, and so China is no longer weak. Soft power may buy you hearts and minds; Japan and South Korea are good examples of that in Asia. But hard power is what truly matters at the end of the day when it comes to asserting your geopolitical interests, and that's clearly the philosophy China has decided to operate under. The U.S. is clearly not oblivious to this reality either. Even if we grant your moral arguments that Maduro was a horrible dictator deserving his fate, the fact that Trump and his administration chose to act when it was geopolitically and domestically convenient strongly suggests that "taking out the big bad Latino dictator for the sake of humanity" was not the primary motivation.
- jyscao 8mo ago
  One thing that never ceases to amuse is how people like yourself always inject moralistic prescriptions into what were meant to be purely descriptive commentaries. My comment on U.S. actions against Venezuela was not a condemnation, but rather just a factual example. Russia's military actions against Ukraine is no different. Nor China's actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
- dudefeliciano 8mo ago
  Venezuela was heavily sanctioned for years before kidnapping Maduro, how about starting there in regards to China/HK? I'm not saying it's realistic or likely but your comparison is flawed. Nothing at all was done for Hong Kong
pjjpo 8mo ago
I think the main issue people have with this comment is the word "recent" and to a lesser degree "U.S.". All countries have done anything to further their goals regardless of any common point of agreement, some times framing within that framework, sometimes not. This is not a recent or US-only phenomenon, it's the definition of geopolitics. I'm all for an alien invasion uniting us but not sure when that will happen.

by jyscao 8mo ago

Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

Yizahi 8mo ago

The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly). Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
You're misunderstanding the analogy. The US's operation in Venezuela was itself a violation of international law, which the international community widely condemned and many countries wish they could have stopped. But there's no button they can push to make the US return Maduro, just as there's no button anyone can push to make China free Jimmy Lai. The only options are a variety of escalatory steps which implicate the relationship between one's own country and China as a whole.
- nradov 8mo ago
  Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate?
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    The UN Charter is a rather unambiguous one.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    The US agreed in Article 2 of the UN Charter, which they ratified on July 1945, that they would refrain from the use of force against the political independence of any state. The reason you rarely see people cite the exact provision is that it's pointless to cite, because the US foreign policy establishment does not care and will not be swayed by persuasive arguments about their treaty obligations.
  - junaru 8mo ago
    > operation Putin has one too.
  - dragonwriter 8mo ago
    > Which ratified treaty did the US's operation in Venezuela violate? Even if it hadn't violated a ratified treaty (it did violate several, starting with the UN Charter and OAS Charter), it would still violate international law; the US has recognized (among other places, in the London Charter of 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal) that the crime of aggressive war exists independently of the crime of waging war in violation of international treaties.
    - spwa4 8mo ago
      And how are you supposed to act against states that openly violate international law? In Venezuela's case, law they explicitly agreed to uphold. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/v... E.g. at least 2 children were executed by Maduro for protesting against him, along with at least hundreds of adults. Mass political arrests by masked men have been common since Chavez came to power, there have been executions of entire families. Torture of prisoners. It goes on and on and on and on, and all of it violates the core of international law: the Geneva convention. Maduro's violations of international treaties include attacks on neighboring states (Maduro's "war on terror" (yes, really) included raids on Columbian territory, plus his promise to attack Guyana). Maduro's violations of international treaties includes, ironically, abducting foreign nationals. And before you say "but ICE". First, this started more than a decade before ICE, it is actually about far more people than ICE, and with ICE there is at least the allegation that those people violated US law (immigration law). So no, it is not the same. ICE comes disturbingly close, true, but this is still a LOT worse. So what is your point? Obviously Venezuela since more than a decade did not respect international law. Is your point that since international law exists, Venezuela should have been attacked way sooner, in fact as soon as it became clear what Chavez was doing? Or do you argue that US/Trump's attack is fine since international law can be ignored anyway? Including Maduro's abduction I think it's very easy to argue that the US behavior is much more in line with international law than Venezuela's. So what is your point? I mean, what reasoning, exactly, leads to your conclusion that Venezuela/Maduro is the victim here? Or should I put it differently and state the obvious: that your reasoning only makes sense if it defends the idea that Maduro's regime is allowed to kill and attack, and the US is not.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
FpUser 8mo ago
>"despite that the only person to suffer " Actually they killed whole bunch of people. And according to POTUS they're currently running the country so cut the bullshit please.
- Yizahi 8mo ago
  Who "they"? If you want to say that this operation was completely botched and there was no quality improvement for the regular Venezuela citizens, then yes, i would agree completely. and international law also suffered as a result. At the same time it is also true that Maduro deserved to be smuggled out, tried and shot. By any possible law or moral standard of any country in the world. He is a horrible criminal even by known public facts. So these things are true at the same time. Same with China, if anyone would decide to intervene there, it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that.
  - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
    > it would be good and bad simultaneously. There is no easy clear answer to that. Clearly, a weasel take on the "two wrongs make a right" doctrine. According to that new take two wrongs can be good and bad simultaneously, there is no easy clear answer, so any additional wrongs mustn't be called "wrongs", they must be called "maybe-rights". Very clever.../s
    - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
      Interesting, previous comment downvoted with no explanation. A sitting president can depict a former president and his wife as apes, but comments on HN are held to a much higher standard. Homework assignment: What is going to happen if Nazi-like propaganda (for example) can use colorful language but its detractors are only allowed to voice polite disagreement? What would the result of that be?
coldtea 8mo ago
>the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world That's just what they told you to justify taking their oil
- mvdtnz 8mo ago
  What are you getting at here? That more people suffered in Venezuala? Or that Maduro is a swell fella?
  - croes 8mo ago
    That nothing really changed for the people of Venezuela
- roncesvalles 8mo ago
  >taking their oil That's what Trump told you to sound badass and edgy. His advisors might have a more complicated rationale that's harder to explain to the public than a single 3-letter word.
  - tkel 8mo ago
    Foreign policy of the US has always been about orchestrating coups to create passive client states for US capitalists more efficiently extract natural resources, going back to 1953 in Iran. Only difference with Trump is he has done away with pretenses. He says the quiet part out loud. He says things like "we want the minerals in Ukraine", and then negotiates a mineral deal. He talks about conquering Panama, Greenland, Canada. He is an unabashed imperialist. It's been at least 70 years of this happening, catch up already. And it goes back even further, to the US controlling the Philippines in 1898, and the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    Trump? The US has been doing it for over 100 years. Trump is just the latest figurehead, it was oil and other resources all along.
onlypassingthru 8mo ago
Pro tip: Try to get the facts straight before commenting. "There was a lot of death on the other side, unfortunately. But a lot of Cubans were killed yesterday trying to protect him," Trump said.[0] [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-details-on-the-covert-operation-to-capture-maduro/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-reveal-new-detail...
- Yizahi 8mo ago
  That's true. But the point still stands. People are outraged even for a small number of cartel criminals shot. Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. The count would be in millions.
  - jyscao 8mo ago
    >Imagine what would happen if someone would try to liberate oppressed people in China. My original point is very much meant to counter absurd hypotheticals like these. No other sovereign nation on Earth at the current point in time would ever dare to "liberate" China, because this is no longer the 19th century, and so China is no longer weak. Soft power may buy you hearts and minds; Japan and South Korea are good examples of that in Asia. But hard power is what truly matters at the end of the day when it comes to asserting your geopolitical interests, and that's clearly the philosophy China has decided to operate under. The U.S. is clearly not oblivious to this reality either. Even if we grant your moral arguments that Maduro was a horrible dictator deserving his fate, the fact that Trump and his administration chose to act when it was geopolitically and domestically convenient strongly suggests that "taking out the big bad Latino dictator for the sake of humanity" was not the primary motivation.
jyscao 8mo ago
One thing that never ceases to amuse is how people like yourself always inject moralistic prescriptions into what were meant to be purely descriptive commentaries. My comment on U.S. actions against Venezuela was not a condemnation, but rather just a factual example. Russia's military actions against Ukraine is no different. Nor China's actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
dudefeliciano 8mo ago
Venezuela was heavily sanctioned for years before kidnapping Maduro, how about starting there in regards to China/HK? I'm not saying it's realistic or likely but your comparison is flawed. Nothing at all was done for Hong Kong

pjjpo 8mo ago

I think the main issue people have with this comment is the word "recent" and to a lesser degree "U.S.". All countries have done anything to further their goals regardless of any common point of agreement, some times framing within that framework, sometimes not. This is not a recent or US-only phenomenon, it's the definition of geopolitics. I'm all for an alien invasion uniting us but not sure when that will happen.