The recent events in the South American country deserve to be approached from the point of view of law.
HAVANA, Cuba. – The successful action of US forces that a couple of days ago attacked the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Madura and his wife has undoubted legal repercussions. As a lawyer, I consider that I can provide some comments on this matter.
The first issue that I think is appropriate to address is the fiery denunciation that bureaucratic socialists make about what they call the “illegality” of the American coup. A good example of this is what the ruler of Cuba said in the “anti-imperialist rally” that he called in a rush, just a few hours after the events.
Mr. Díaz-Canel said there: “Cuba condemns and denounces these actions as an act of State terrorism; a criminal assault against our America, a zone of peace; a violation of the sovereignty of a nation that is a symbol of independence, dignity and solidarity, and an unacceptable attack on international law.”
First of all, I must recognize that, in truth, decisive American action cannot find protection in the norms of international law. It is true that the latter contain a multitude of regulations, but none of them cover actions such as the one carried out against the dictator installed in the Miraflores Palace. For these purposes, the multiple violations of human rights and the countless other illegal acts perpetrated by him do not matter.
But I do not understand at all the indignation shown in this regard by the official head of Cuba. He does not hide from saying that he himself and his government represent the “continuity” of Castroism’s policies. And perhaps he forgot the approach given by his mentor to the Warsaw Pact countries’ invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?
I remember the television address given on that occasion by the “Maximum Leader.” He began by pointing out that the invasion of the USSR and its allies had no semblance of legality. But he immediately argued that the act of force was necessary to “save socialism” (as if disastrous socialism were something worth saving!).
Mr. Fidel Castro, in his twisted interpretation, considered the occupation of an independent country to be necessary, which lasted for two decades! For his part, this modest informant considers that the specific action of the United States, focused on the capture of Maduro and which lasted just a few minutes, can invoke much greater justifications!
By the way, since we are addressing issues related to interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, I cannot fail to allude to those who died as a result of American actions.
According to The New York Timesat least 80 people died during the American action. The island’s authorities recognized that 32 of the “combatants” who died in Venezuela were Cubans.
So, it is a true fact that those born in the Greater Antilles constituted the bulk of the components of Maduro’s entourage! And having to listen to the Castros talking about interference in internal affairs!… (the one perpetrated by the others, of course).
It is likely that the silence maintained on this matter for days by the Venezuelan authorities (an evident lack of respect for the natural interest of the citizens of that country to stay informed of this event that concerns them) will continue as long as possible. And I do not doubt that both governing teams (those of Caracas and Havana) have adopted an agreement in this regard.
There are other obvious legal implications that I think are important to address. I am referring to those that derive from the permanence in power of the Maduro regime (although now without its main representative, who gave it its name). In this context, interest focuses on Mrs. Delcy Rodríguez, appointed by the now imprisoned dictator as his replacement.
During the very important press conference held by President Trump and his main collaborators at noon on Saturday, there was a passage in which the Cuban-American Marco Rubio also participated. This Secretary of State alluded to a long telephone exchange that he had with the aforementioned lady.
Naturally, those giving the conference did not go into detail about the specific content of the conversation, but the mere fact that its notable duration was noted indicates that the main pending problems of Venezuelan-American relations and the perspectives that have arisen after the recent military action were addressed in detail.
It is true that the Chavista authorities represent a spurious regime, which remains in power thanks to the electoral fraud perpetrated against Edmundo González Urrutia (despite having obtained, according to the existing minutes, more than two-thirds of the votes cast). But, whether we like that reality or not, it is a certain fact that the regime now headed by Delcy Rodríguez maintains control over the entire country.
I believe that, for this lady, not only the prolonged conversation with Secretary Rubio, but also Trump’s statements that she “will pay a very high price” if she does not collaborate with the United States are important incentives… We will have to observe, logically, her actions in the days and weeks to come.
And it is likely that, ultimately, everything will lead not to the retroactive recognition of Don Edmundo’s triumph, but to new elections. This is the principle that appears embodied in article 233 of the brand new Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. According to this precept, among the “absolute faults” of whoever occupies the Presidency is “the abandonment of the position declared as such by the National Assembly.”
Of course, we already know that the current legislature of the Patria de Bolívar, controlled by the Chavistas, is very inclined to approve the suggestions coming from the high leadership of the regime… But the fact is that, even if we choose not to resort to this mechanism, or in the unlikely case of parliamentary refusal to declare the aforementioned “abandonment of office” (for which a solid argument is provided: that Maduro does not continue to hold his position for reasons beyond his control), there would be another way out. constitutional.
The aforementioned provision also contemplates the “resignation” of the president. This, of course, will depend on the decision adopted by the now DEA prisoner, but I imagine that, faced with the prospect of long years of confinement, Maduro is inclined to pay close attention to the suggestions made by his jailers.
As the popular saying goes, “sometimes what happens is convenient.” The holding of new elections under the watchful eye of international democratic opinion will allow María Corina Machado, who was the person preferred by the Venezuelan people, to appear as a candidate (González Urrutia was just a substitute). And the resounding victory of the Nobel Peace Prize winner will undoubtedly open new perspectives on the continent.
