My wife asked me this morning about how I felt about the Americans flying their war planes over Venezuela. The question got me to thinking. You see, it is a truism that countries don't have friends - they have interests. So? What interest could the Americans have under President Drumpf (the misspelling is deliberate)? I guess that it could be argued that Maburro's (again, the misspelling is deliberate) policies are creating a national security problem for the USA because something like 10 million Venezuelans have fled their country and settled in the United States because of the Donkey's terrible policies. That is about one third of the population who have fled their country. Here in T&T we have also been affected by the Donkey's policies thus creating for us an economic problem.
But there is a counter argument to that , which says that what Drumpf is doing sets a very bad precedent for both the Region and the world. If, the argument goes, the Americans don't like a particular regime they can and will remove it regardless.
This argument is also valid. Certainly, the argument against Drumpf is that it is, amongst other things, against international law which says that a people should be free to choose their own leaders.
The obvious problem here is that the Venezuelans under Maburro cannot be described as 'free'. Indeed, Maburrro cheated in the last election which was anything but free and which he lost by a huge margin but still hung on to power.
So? Do two wrongs make a right in this case? Its difficult to answer dispassionately. On the one hand it is clear that Maburro should be removed as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it is difficult (if not impossible) to justify Drumpf's actions.
My own feeling is that (a) the Americans are engaging in actions that cannot be justified in law, BUT = and it is a big |but| (b) the sooner Maburro is dethroned the better, for both Venezuela and the Region, In other words, Maburro should be forced to go - one way or the other. What do you think?
