After years of US-Venezuelan relations being largely overlooked, they’ve recently escalated due to the US’s use of provocative language in the “whereas” section of an executive order that sanctioned seven mid-level officials.
“unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”
With thousands of nuclear weapons, spies embedded globally, a military budget nearly equal to the rest of the world’s combined, and an economy seemingly immune to outside pressures, one must be deluded to view a middle-income South American nation—home to baseball fans, TV watchers, and fried-food lovers—as an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” It’s akin to the Dallas Cowboys fretting over a middle-school field hockey team breaching their line. A country grappling with imminent climate change threats (which cannot be named), severe poverty, and gun violence (which also cannot be named) is instead using its state power against…seven mid-ranking officials in Venezuela. I bet everyone in Peoria is breathing a sigh of relief, their worries now eased. I wonder if there’s a new military medal for valiantly fighting midlevel bureaucrats in South America.
But on a serious note, there’s more to this action than meets the (sarcastic) eye.
Firstly, I’m not in favor of imposing sanctions on individuals. In my view, they are a violation of human rights. If you possess evidence that justifies charging someone with a crime in your jurisdiction, then bring charges and try to apprehend them. If you lack sufficient information to file charges—or more likely, if you want to keep your sources and methods hidden—then just back off. One cannot impose state power on individuals without ensuring due process, whether they are citizens or not. Human rights are inherent because we are human, not contingent on the legal systems under which we are born.
In 2015, one shouldn’t have to reiterate the importance of due process, but the crux remains that without it, you can never be certain you’re punishing the correct individual, you miss the chance to confront them with allegations and hear their response, you lose the potential information they might provide under questioning, and you risk enabling limitless state power.
The discourse around whether Joe Blow or Jose Fulano deserves sanctions misses the core issue that individual administrative sanctions are a misguided approach.
Secondly, some argue that the “extraordinary threat” phrasing was essential to validate the sanctions. That’s troubling. As Greg Weeks noted,
Words carry weight even if they exist just for bureaucratic justifications. They send powerful signals.
For those who doubt this, consider an online statement from a friend who previously supported Chávez but grew disillusioned with the corruption and inefficiency of the Venezuelan state (my translation below):
Venezuela is indeed a significant threat to US security, according to the “Nobel peace prize” winner??? Are these the words from the representative of the most intrusive nation on earth??? Are they creating circumstances for a military intervention in Venezuela??? What, Venezuela isn’t a sovereign nation??? What, Venezuelans aren’t capable of addressing “our” own political and social challenges??? Is there a considerable portion of the Venezuelan public, struggling for aid, that hasn’t realized that when these “gentlemen from the North” threaten, disaster follows??? Do bombs differentiate between Chavistas and opposition members??? Ladies and gentlemen, consider the realities of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine… These statements are gravely concerning!!! And lastly, what has Venezuela actually done to threaten US security??? What a bizarre reality!!!
Indeed, words send crucial signals. Recall, this is the response of someone opposed to the Venezuelan government.
Thirdly, if the “threat language” is indeed a bureaucratic requirement, that only reflects the dysfunction within the US political system. Is it really so complex to pursue human rights violators unless they pose a serious threat to the US? Why does a superpower feel the need to act out of fear constantly? For some reason, the animated segment of Bowling for Columbine comes to mind.
Fourthly, I don’t buy it. The US boasts some of the finest legal experts. They’ve created justifications for torturing a Canadian child, stopping people and demanding citizenship documents far from borders, and wiretapping globally. Need to justify an executive act while sidestepping a tiny bureaucratic obligation? I hear John Yoo is still out of prison; I’m sure he can draft a memo for you.
Fifth, all this is simply a distraction. These sanctions will have minimal to no impact on what happens to protesters in Venezuela or those who violate human rights there. The real actions occurred the next day, when the US for once took steps against alleged money laundering. This is yet another heap of hypocrisy (When corrupt figures from wealthy nations utilize anonymous companies, offshore accounts, family trusts, questionable accounting and bogus nonprofits, it’s considered “personal finance.” When kleptocrats in developing nations do so, it’s branded as “money laundering.”), but it holds far greater significance and could genuinely assist the Venezuelan populace. Let’s save that for another time.
Finally, I see Boz just published something critiquing those of us who criticize the recent US rhetoric. And Tim Padgett mentions it’s all about Cuba. Fascinating reads.