By John Q. Hosedrinker 
French President Emmanuel Macron has clarified his stance on the US military operation that removed Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela, stating that France “neither supported nor approved” the US’s methods. This statement came after his initial reaction, which was more supportive of Maduro’s overthrow, drew criticism. The French President emphasized the importance of international law and the role of Venezuela’s 2024 election winner, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, in any transition. This contrasts with the US, which, while not seeking regime change, now considers itself “in charge” and seeks a compliant government.
Read the original article here
Macron says France ‘does not approve’ of US method to overthrow Maduro, a statement that immediately brings to mind the old adage, “I like what you did, but I don’t like how you did it.” This seemingly contradictory position highlights the complexities of international relations and the often-uneasy balance between desired outcomes and acceptable means. The core of the issue, as implied by the phrase, is that while the French President might not have objected to Maduro’s removal from power in principle, he took issue with the specific tactics employed by the United States to achieve that goal. This disapproval speaks to a broader concern about the use of force, potential violations of international law, and the precedent such actions set for future interventions.
The natural next question is, what would Macron’s preferred method have been? The comments suggest that finding a “less messy way to overthrow a government” is a challenge. Consider the options: a protracted war, a bloody civil war, covertly providing weapons to rebels, or even a targeted assassination. Each alternative presents its own set of ethical dilemmas and potential for devastating consequences. It appears the operation was fast and efficient with minimal casualties. It is quite a contrast when compared to the violent upheavals that often accompany regime change. This raises the question of whether there’s a truly “clean” way to remove a leader, especially one accused of human rights abuses and undermining democratic processes.
The criticism also touches upon the inconsistencies in international responses to authoritarianism. If the US is truly opposed to dictators, then why is it perceived as not being as aggressive against figures like Putin or Kim Jong Un? This line of thought suggests a potential double standard, where interventions are more readily undertaken in certain regions or against specific adversaries. It challenges the stated motivations behind such actions, raising questions about whether factors like oil and geopolitical interests play a significant role. It is possible the US action was an attempt to influence oil markets.
When faced with rigged elections, the exile of opposition figures, and the application of crippling sanctions, what recourse does the international community have? The options are limited and often fraught with peril. Does the world simply accept the status quo? The comments suggest this is unacceptable and that the “pen hasn’t been mightier than the sword for a long time.” The criticism of the US method might be viewed as a signal that the US should employ methods that they themselves would have been subject to as well, such as having their oil supplies cut.
The discussion also raises the question of whether it is better to act quickly and decisively, even if the methods are questionable, or to take a more cautious and measured approach. It notes that the capture of Maduro was “the most acceptable way to capture a foreign leader almost with no violence and deaths.” The former option might be seen as achieving the desired outcome with minimal bloodshed, while the latter might allow for a more thorough investigation of the legality and ethics of the action.
The question of whether Trump would use the same method to remove Putin underscores the double standard and selective application of interventions. The comments imply that there’s a degree of political opportunism and perhaps a hint of racism underlying the decision, that the US is more concerned with countries with brown-skinned people. The comparison to the situation in Africa also speaks to the history of Western interference and the legacy of colonialism, adding another layer of complexity to the debate.
The comments also reflect a certain skepticism about the US’s motives. The accusation that the US is “horny for annexing” and is more interested in the resources of Venezuela, such as oil, than in the well-being of its people. This criticism suggests that the US should focus on standing up to Putin. It is a cynical viewpoint, but one that is often voiced when it comes to international relations. It challenges the rhetoric of humanitarian intervention and calls attention to the underlying power dynamics at play.
The criticisms reflect a nuanced perspective on the situation. On the one hand, there is a clear disapproval of the US method. On the other, there is an understanding that the situation in Venezuela was dire, and that a change in leadership might be seen as a net positive. It’s a recognition that the US’ actions are a mix of both the good and the bad. It is a sentiment that reflects the complexities of international politics.
The final remarks about the lack of approval from the French and other countries show how it is a rare case where the US could be viewed by the rest of the world as being overly aggressive. It is ironic, however, because most of the world probably is secretly happy. This, in turn, suggests a degree of pragmatism, where the desired outcome outweighs the means to achieve it. It’s the messy reality of the world and how a country of France’s standing has to conduct itself.