By Tenma Bonifacio
The very short bombing of Venezuela and the immediate capture of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, has become an international hot topic as of current. The consensus regarding the capture has been divisive, and it calls to attention the reliability of international law in preventing powerful states from taking actions unilaterally. Thus, it brings up the question of whether or not the frameworks that represent the image of global peace, order, and cooperation only apply to less powerful and affluent states, as opposed to bigger states being outside the control.
On another note, most liberal sentiments online have criticized the US military action, denouncing Trump’s use of force. The hatred and condemnation regarding the actions taken by the US administration have sparked a public gathering in New York to criticize the bombing and arrest of a foreign President. But these are the opinions of Americans themselves, as well as foreign liberals who view Trump as an enemy and a threat to their liberties and rights. On the other side of the border, a larger majority of Venezuelans are celebrating the downfall of their President. Maduro was viewed as a Dictator, and even liberal Venezuelans who are opposed to Trump are happy that Maduro is finally gone. This brings into light the fickleness of public sentiments. Hypothetically, if Trump were to have world leaders like Putin captured, bypassing international laws, would his actions be criticized? Would the US be praised because they took down a character that a large amount of the population views with infamy? Or would such military actions be criticized as US overreach and acting like a police force, because it was Trump who did it?
Maduro assumed office in 2013 for the first time after Hugo Chavez. After that, Maduro held influence in many political institutions within the country, including the military and the Supreme Tribunal, which deprived the country of power held by the National Assembly, as well as depriving the members of the Assembly of their immunity. He’d be reelected in 2018 and in 2024. According to the Human Rights Watch non-profit organization, poor communities no longer supporting Maduro experienced arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings. Yet a large part of this news is not known by foreign supporters of Maduro. Some news even bend the stick, stating that Venezuela lost a dictator just to gain a new one - a speculation that tries to downplay the fact that a dictator was nevertheless still brought down. The worries of America becoming the next dictating power over Venezuela is understandable, given how proactive Trump and his administration have been in going against the current world order, as well as America being known for always going to war where the oil is abundant. Venezuela possesses oil reserves which many believe to be the main reason Trump and the US government are in conflict with Maduro and his government.
Contrasting Maduro and two other presidents, Nayib Bukele and Duterte, the wide arrest of gangs by the former and the mass killings of drug addicts by the latter have significantly brought down crime rates in their country, prioritizing a strong reformation of a country that has been steeped in corruption, and determined to be leaders that improve their country. Yet, due to their closeness with Trump, both have been criticized as dictators by leftist media and liberal individuals online. Another case of foreign individuals outside looking in and being fed by the opposition media of the country to lock them in an echo chamber. They continue to hate these characters, when their own people praise them. No one complained or even largely knows about how Duterte was arrested. The current government, which is controversially steeped in allegations of corruption and drug trafficking, superseded the local judicial process and ambushed Duterte after he went to Hong Kong to check his health, and surrendered him to the ICC where his health has deteriorated.
Large-scale protests broke out over the surrender of their President, yet the media had been silent about the entire events, only listening to news provided by the opposition - the same government that had Duterte arrested without going through proper channels locally. The same local supporters of this government, who are primarily listened to by foreigners, say that the Human Development Index of the Mindanao region of the Philippines is dubbed to be on the same level as Sub-Saharan Africans. Where is the backlash over such open derogatory insult and stereotype?
What qualifies a world leader to receive the support of foreign liberals? Should they be competent leaders that strive to better their country no matter what, or is it to simply hate Donald Trump?