Harry Geels: Three nuances in Maduro's hostage situation
This column was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.
By Harry Geels
The American intervention in Venezuela and Maduro's arrest are leading to predictable polarisation. Instead of repeating the familiar arguments, however, it is worth taking a more contemplative look at the situation. This yields three interesting perspectives.
This weekend, social media was once again abuzz with reactions to the US invasion of Venezuela. Opinions ranged from harsh condemnation (violation of international law, infringement of a country's sovereignty) to more pragmatic responses (potentially more freedom and democracy in an authoritarian and corrupt country). There is no point in repeating all these arguments now. I would rather zoom out and look at this act of violence from a more philosophical perspective.
1) The invasion is part of current geopolitical developments
Most analyses of recent events speculate about the real reason behind the kidnapping: drugs, oil, power, freedom. We will probably never be able to ascertain the real reasons. Firstly, we do not have access to the information available to the US. Secondly, we should not accept everything that politicians say as the truth. However, one conclusion does seem justified: the raid is part of the current geopolitical tug-of-war.
The world is rapidly dividing into geopolitical-economic blocs. The US is focusing more on itself, but in doing so it needs to exert considerable influence on its own continent, particularly with regard to access to raw materials and consumer markets. Venezuela is rich in raw materials and a political oddity. It financed other socialist countries, such as Cuba (mainly with oil), and increasingly cooperated with China and, to a lesser extent, Iran and Russia. The invasion is therefore pure realpolitik. Or perhaps a return to the Monroe Doctrine.
2) There is hypocrisy and inconsistency in the condemnation
Countries or well-known individuals are not always consistent in condemning violence. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is by no means condemned as harshly by all countries as, for example, this act of aggression. If international laws matter, they must be applied universally. In the past fifty years alone, more than a hundred binding Security Council resolutions have not been complied with. There are many double standards and international law regularly fails to have an effect.
3) A categorical imperative
Finally, the most ethical-philosophical perspective, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: always act according to the rule that you want to become a universal law. In other words, if you condemn this act of aggression, would you pass the same judgement in all similar cases? Suppose, for example, that French elite troops did something similar in the Kremlin and kidnapped Putin. Would you condemn that kidnapping with the same certainty? Or the kidnapping of Hitler in the 1930s by any of Germany's neighbouring countries?
This thought experiment forces you to consider whether your moral judgement is principled or situational. In addition, Kant argues that people should never be used merely as a means, but always as an end in themselves. This applies not only to Maduro, but to all Venezuelans: are their freedom and self-determination respected here, or are they merely being used as a means to geopolitical ends? According to Kant, it is morally reprehensible to use an entire population merely as a means to an end.
Anyone who takes Kant seriously must ask themselves: do you consistently condemn and always respect human beings as ends in themselves, even when this is politically inconvenient? For those who find Kant's philosophy too abstract, we can also refer to Hugo Grotius, the founder of international law. In De Jure belle ac Pacis, he argues that you may remove a dictator, but only with the right intention (i.e. not out of self-interest). And then there is another ethical question: if you find the actions of the US (philosophically) reprehensible, do you continue to do business or invest there?
Consequences for investors
Apart from the moral and geopolitical debate, there is also an economic dimension. If Venezuela were to reopen under a more Western-oriented government, this could have a positive impact on South American stock markets. An economy would be added that would once again drive trade, attract investment and possibly join international capital markets. For the US, this means greater security in terms of raw materials and less dependence on China. Oil production could increase, which would probably lead to lower oil prices worldwide.
In short, investors are likely to view this development as positive, provided the transition to stability is successful.
In conclusion
The invasion of Venezuela is more than an incident. It is a mirror for our geopolitical reality, our moral consistency and even our economic interests. Those who speak out should do so on the basis of universal principles and not on the basis of opportunism. And anyone who looks at the markets can see that power politics and economics are inextricably linked. Perhaps that is the biggest lesson: ideals are fine, but in practice, realpolitik often reigns supreme, and that always comes at a price, both ethical and financial.
This article contains the personal opinion of Harry Geels