Photo: retrieved

Dictator Nicolás Maduro’s week has been, to put it mildly, complex. So far, he’s endured intense criticism from a considerable amount of countries at the United Nations General Assembly, he’s had his innermost circle harshly sanctioned by the United States (including his Primera Combatiente, whatever the fuck that means), and he spoke before a mostly empty hall, having his words fall on either deaf or no ears at all. But, for today, let’s focus on perhaps the most symbolically powerful (albeit logistically useless) international action against Maduro’s regime this week: the complaint filed against him at the International Criminal Court.

The facts: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay and Peru said they were planning to submit a request before the Netherlands-based court.

The facts: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay and Peru said they were planning to submit a request before the Netherlands-based court, asking for an investigation of the Venezuelan regime for Crimes Against Humanity. Later on, Canada joined the movement for the request, which was introduced on Wednesday morning. This is huge for a couple of reasons. But first, the obvious question:

What exactly is the International Criminal Court?

Not to be confused with the International Court of Justice (and boy, do my students confuse them), the ICC is an international court based upon the Rome Statute, which currently holds 123 member states. Its purpose isn’t resolving disputes between countries (that would be the ICJ), but to judge individual criminals whose crimes either can’t be judged in their own countries or are heinous enough to be judged by “the world.” This is not an open list, but rather very specific crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity (Maduro’s case), and crimes of aggression.

Why does this matter?

Back to the story. This is huge, mainly because no member state has ever referred another to the ICC. In a diplomatic world marked by sovereignty and non-intervention, countries are very careful not to mess with each other’s business. The fact that these six states are willing to make an exception for Venezuela’s case says quite a bit about how bad they believe the situation is.

Ok, so what does it mean?

In terms of Law, it means the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, should now launch an investigation on Venezuela. Bensouda had already stated, in February, that a “preliminary investigation” was underway. This new complaint is a call to fast-track the investigation and come to conclusions sooner.

The bad news:

I can’t promise that the investigation will lead to an accusation, much less a conviction. If the international world is slow, and the judicial world is slow, try combining the two. The ICC measures time in years, if not decades. Moreover, even if a formal accusation is made (which would be even bigger in symbolic terms), there’s absolutely no guarantee of apprehension, trial and conviction. For all its conceptual worth, the ICC has only convicted four of the 34 people indicted. So the most likely answer is no, Nicolás Maduro will not rot in a Dutch-based international prison.

So, what’s the point?

The world of international relations is complex. It deals in support and animosity, tactics like friendship and cooperation on the one side, with isolating, naming and shaming on the other. So, while we won’t see an international SWAT team ram down the doors to Miraflores and drag a pajama-clad Nicolás Maduro kicking and screaming from his late-night re-viewing of Mean Girls to a cold, dark cell, there’s still a silver lining.

For all its conceptual worth, the ICC has only convicted four of the 34 people indicted.

This complaint, coupled with all the other international actions we discussed at the start of the post, means there’s a more solid international movement regarding the Venezuelan situation than ever before. Now, I’m not personally a big believer in international actions toppling a dictatorship. But as far as the UN world goes, this approach is as good as it gets for us.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

57 COMMENTS

  1. Carlos…thanks for writing realistically, describing what this court is and isn’t. Great command of the English language by the way. But most importantly your report was informative. Good work.

    • If no international tribunal can have jurisdiction, authority or legitimacy with respect to crimes against humanity or genocide, then great injustices were done at Nuremberg.

        • Excellent. Caracas Chronicles readers vote:

          1- the trials at Nuremberg were a pure exercise of power; justice is simply an expression of power

          1- the trials at Nuremberg were an important step in enforcing fundamental, international norms, based on Law, evidence and due process

          Who will break this tie?

          International law: good thing, or waste of time and energy?

          • “a series of military tribunals held by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of war after World War II.”

            El Guapo was, of course, spot-on.

          • Nuremberg was the first of its kind, and basically failed on just about every level.

            Not to mention that it didn’t touch .00000000000000000000001% of the war criminals.

            So yeah, Canucklehead. It basically was a waste of time and energy.

            True justice would have been military tribunals who hung on the spot everyone with the SS tattoo in their arm pit, and those who admired that tattoo.

            You’re a true socialist, with no concept of true justice.

          • Ira, while I admit that the process was imperfect, perhaps this little ditty will make you feel better.

            “The death sentences were carried out on 16 October 1946 by hanging using the standard drop method instead of long drop. The U.S. army denied claims that the drop length was too short which caused the condemned to die slowly from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck, but evidence remains that some of the condemned men died agonizingly slowly, struggling for 14 to 28 minutes before finally choking to death. The executioner was John C. Woods. Woods had hanged 34 U.S. soldiers during the war, botching several of them. The executions took place in the gymnasium of the court building (demolished in 1983).

      • “then great injustices were done at Nuremberg”

        WTF is all I can say really! That’s all you could come up with?? Are you actually defending nazi’s now, is that how low you go just because you hate Trump?

          • @Canucklehead The ICC ain’t the International Tribunals that sat at (among others) Tokyo and Nuremburg).

            Goddit?

            Also, at most, Nuremberg etc. al were qualified good things. As an Italian-American, let me ask you: how many Fascist Italian war criminals got their time on the bench for the death by gassing of hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians? For death camps for Slovenes and Croats on the Eastern side of the Adriatic? For perfidy in peace and war?

            Go on.

            I’ll wait for you with the answer.

            And that’s nonwithstanding the numerous blindspots that came with them. Such as the fact that Speer got away with literal murder thanks to perjury.

            They are much better compared to pretty much everything that came before (in particular the nonexistent followup following WWI). But that ain’t saying much.

            It also helped that in many ways the Axis powers screwed themselves over by subjecting themselves to international laws they had no intention of honoring. Because that meant that they could then be reamed for it. It also helped several of the most guilty (like the Covets) that their actions were not scrutinized.

      • Classic marxist abuse of language. Cucklehead claims that if any court lacks jurisdiction, then all courts lack jurisdiction. Clue: every court has limits on its jurisdiction.

        Also, nice way to bathe everyone else in national socialism, cucklehead. Your envy and bigotry is showing.

      • “If no international tribunal can have jurisdiction, authority or legitimacy with respect to crimes against humanity or genocide, then great injustices were done at Nuremberg.”

        A: Logical Fallacy of Composition.

        Your “logic”-such as it is- goes like this:

        Both the ICC and Nuremburg are international tribunals on war crimes.

        ICC critics such as Trump argue that the ICC has no jurisdiction and legitimacy.

        Ergo they also argue that the Nuremburg Tribunals have no jurisdiction and legitimacy.

        This is ILLOGICAL, and what’s more it would STILL Be illogical even if it were factually true.

        The truth is, most of the Axis powers screwed themselves over since they were charged for crimes that they agreed existed and subjected themselves to (like Geneva). They thought they would get away with it. They didn’t.

        B: Great injustices WERE done at Nuremburg.

        The fact that Albert Speer did NOT dance the ropeline jamboree at the end is testament to that.

        And what’s more, let’s not kid ourselves: the Nuremburg lineage lent itself to GREAT miscarriages of justice. There was no systematic accounting for Italian war criminals in a similar tribunal, a farcical one was erected to persecute the Finns, and the Tokyo Tribunal conspired to frame someone in order to draw attention off of Prince Asaka’s staff.

        You DO NOT get to deny these things.

        The fact that Nuremburg and its kin did less injustice than they did justice is important. As is the improvement they were over what little came before. But that doesn’t excuse the other side of the coin.

        “1- the trials at Nuremberg were a pure exercise of power; justice is simply an expression of power

        1- the trials at Nuremberg were an important step in enforcing fundamental, international norms, based on Law, evidence and due process”

        The answer, of course, is the Second with a bit of the first.

        The Trials of Nuremburg were based on Law, Evidence, and Due Process. But they were also based on power and the agendas of vested powers, who applied said processes inconsistently when it clashed with their interests. And the shadow they cast looms large over international jurisprudence.

        “Who will break this tie?

        International law: good thing, or waste of time and energy?”

        International law CAN be a good thing.

        But it can also be a catastrophic waste of time and energy. Particularly if it is not enforced properly. Don’t believe me?

        Try researching WWI and how almost nobody got persecuted for the war crimes that were conducted there.

        How do you think the next generation of nutjobs looked at that?

  2. Excellent post, well-written, smart, well-informed, realistic and to the point. A veritable rarity lately on CC.

    So well-written, there’s not much more to add. I’d just underscore than only 6 countries out of 193 in the United Nations endorsed this accusation. Where are the freaking WEASELS from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, hell, the USA etc, etc? Seems that not a single European country gives a flying fock about Venezuela’s tragedy, do they? Guess they’re too busy dealing with similar disasters, absorbing so many Africans and Moslems. (Usually even hungrier, more desperate and way more dangerous than Venezuelans, especially the freaking radical Moslems..) –

    Just within the American Continent, where are the despicable diplomats and hypocrite politicians from freaking MEXICO? Honduras, Guatemala.. They cry like babies for Justice, begging to be admitted in to the USA, cross the border over and over by the millions decade after decade, begging and crying and suffering, and they have nothing to say about Venezuela’s similar struggles now. Shame on all them freaking Mexicans politicians and the people themselves who elected them and don’t say anything either, etc.

    That’s the world we live in. People care about their own butts. Kudos to Macri, Duque and Piñera. Real people with some real moral value and some cojones. Extremely rare in the freaking world of ‘diplomacy’ and politics. That’s why they hardly ever accomplish anything at all. Mnay other countries, especially the remaining American big boys, (supposedly our “hermanos”, huh, and bullshit like that..) The USA, and its enormous Latin population, the Mexican double-faced Weasels, and the Brazilians pussies, not to mention the Argentinian Jerks, where are they?

    If those pathetic governments, (and their lethargic, apathetic and indifferent populaces) were to join in this formal international accusation, some TROOPS might finally DO something.

  3. Carlos, you’re a smart guy whose intentions are good and you write well so I’m going to offer unsolicited advice.

    Democracy, the rule of law and international institutions and treaties designed to promote and safeguard both are under attack. Not just in Venezuela, but worldwide, although Venezuela is on the vanguard of this global attack and a retreat.

    You have here an audience of largely (not exclusively) cynical, illiberal, know nothing nationalists and culture warriors (ethno nationalists some of them), similar in view to the kind who have cynically divided and ruined your country.

    I encourage you, however, when writing about international law and international institutions, to tell us more about where the principles they are founded on come from, why these institutions are important, what they have accomplished, as well as some of the reasons why they have fallen short and how those points can be remedied.

    We don’t have the luxury of spending half our breath apologizing for democracy, the rule of law and international order any more. The flaws are apparent. They don’t justify throwing these things out.

    It doesn’t much matter here, in this little corner of the internet, but it matters a lot out there. Use your skills above all to defend these things. Use this, your absolute worst kind of audience, to practice that skill you obviously have, and defend those principles to which you have dedicated yourself.

    • A Marxist talking about democracy.
      Canucklehead my little colonial you really are a dick.

      “You have here an audience of largely (not exclusively) cynical, illiberal, know nothing nationalists and culture warriors (ethno nationalists some of them), similar in view to the kind who have cynically divided and ruined your country.”

      Dont speak for me you dick, you are not the paradigm of virtue to criticise people here on mass, you dick.
      The most illiberal people i have ever met are allways liberals, of which you are one, the marxist fascist type.
      And besides i do not think Carlos Egana needs advice, nor counsel from you.

      Did i say you were a dick.

      “your absolute worst kind of audience,” I think that to Carlos as to me, the worst kind of audience is someone like you, who pontificates on a country you do not live in. I personally would not have the arrogance to comment on a blog about Canada in the way you do here!

      But then again….. did i say you were a dick?

      • Well said, Crusader.

        Yup, written by some dick pontificating on Venezuela and he does not even live here. Please come to Venezuela Canucklehead and I am sure you would change your tune very fast. Just live in this shithole and you would be begging for the gringos to come save your whiney ass.

    • “You have here an audience of largely (not exclusively) cynical, illiberal, know nothing nationalists and culture warriors (ethno nationalists some of them), similar in view to the kind who have cynically divided and ruined your country.”

      What a pompous ass piece of work you are. Your home must be filled with mirrors.

      • MRubio, you can sometimes write in sentences that don’t include poop and genitalia. I’m doing a survey here.

        The Nuremberg trials: like, or don’t like?

        • Pompous ass has nothing to do with poop or genitalia, though I’d be happy to call you a shithead dick if it makes you feel better.

          The Nuremberg trials I liked. The victors set up the courts and followed both international and the laws of war.

        • @Canucklehead “MRubio, you can sometimes write in sentences that don’t include poop and genitalia. I’m doing a survey here. ”

          Ironic, considering how I rarely include either in my responses.

          And your usual reaction is to ignore as much of my post as you can get away with.

          “The Nuremberg trials: like, or don’t like?”

          A qualified like. A good improvement (over essentially nothing or ad hoc tribunals like the one that hung Commandant Wirz), but nowhere near sufficeint enough.

          Oh and also, they were almost invariably based on very different grounds than that which the ICC was based on. The problem the Axis powers ran into is that like the Central Powers before them, they were party to international laws they had no intention of honoring and which they were confident they’d never be punished for.

          Then they were. Or at least some of them. Nevermind how Prince Asaka and Marshal Graziani never had to answer for their conduct.

          And even then, they are still significantly better than the ICC’s track record, which has been marred with corruption, open disregard for state sponsorship of terrorism, and lack of consistency on its own stated jurisprudence.

    • It matters here. It is just that a small group that has nothing better to do than set around day boozing (you know who you are) and post the same thing over and over (and you know who you are). Trump god-like…No like Trump (even a very specific policy)…you nazi, fascist, communist, sexually inadequate, and anti-American. Somehow every post turns into a Trump referendum in the comments section.

      Fact is these are lonely men who obsess on something they harbor deep hatred for. The people living in the myopic mess that is Venezuela. They visit this sight every day with the same tired message of how pathetic the Venezuelan population is, never once pausing to consider how pathetic they are.

      Most of these rubes are discombobulated by the outside world. Leaving the comfortable confines of their own computer room is scary. Travel is out of the question and culture alludes them. Some undoubted collect government checks while harshly chastening the poor Venezuelan who accepts a CLAP bag to survive.

      In real life such people are shunned not so much because they are crass and abrasive to those who don’t drink the same kool aid, but they really are boring. Nobody gives them or their silly “tell it like it is” phony machismo any respect except for echo chambers on the internet.

      Venezuela is perfect for them. It is a dysfunctional nightmare beyond imagination and a perfect place to point at and say anything you want and be as disgusting as you please and still be right.

      Where it gets absurd is when they give the one size fits all diagnoses and then a prescription that is equally definitive (and usually unrealistic). If someone disagrees…you guessed it…they are nazi, fascist, communist, sexually inadequate, and anti-American.

      Such is the life of trolls and pathetic soles.

    • @Canucklehead “Carlos, you’re a smart guy whose intentions are good and you write well so I’m going to offer unsolicited advice.”

      Given how your unsolicited advice has amounted to “commit suicide by removing the comments section”, I doubt the value of it.

      “Democracy, the rule of law and international institutions and treaties designed to promote and safeguard both are under attack. ”

      Note the bait and switch.

      Note the way that he links Democracy and the Rule of Law- two things that are unquestionably good- with “international institutions and treaties designed to promote and safeguard both.”

      On the surface, it looks credible and valid.

      The PROBLEM, as Ivan Ivanich my Russian Bot Farm Supervisor told me when he walked in chugging a bottle of aftershave told me, is that just because something is DESIGNED to do something does not mean it WILL do that.

      And periodically it can be used for diametrically opposite reasons for what it was intended.

      The Good Neighbor Policy the US instituted under FDR was an attempt to end a long string of USMC landings or American sponsored coups throughout Hispanic America in favor of a more hands off, give and take policy. And to a large degree that has worked. But to another degree it also led to US support or tolerance of domestic tyrannies throughout the hemisphere, particularly friendly ones like Pinochet etc. al. but also hostile ones like Castro.

      The EEC was designed to be an agreement between elected national governments in Western Europe to ease free trade in preparation for recovery from WWII and guarding against WW3.Now its offspring the EU has moved towards trying to become a nation-state, which means dissolving the constituent members. You may think that is a noble goal, but you do not get to argue that was the goal that the EEC was set out to make.

      And finally,the UN was meant to be a new and improved League of Nations. One that would serve as the public forum for free covenants of diplomacy AND would have the teeth to go after rogue states. But Soviet savvy at not getting kicked out and decolonization meant that it got freeloaded with dictatorships that have used it as a platform to bash democratic states like Israel and the US.

      Unintended Consequences, Canucklehead.

      Try studying them sometime.

      “Not just in Venezuela, but worldwide, although Venezuela is on the vanguard of this global attack and a retreat.”

      No, it’s not.

      The vanguard of the global attack comes from Iran, Syria, Russia, and the PRC.

      Venezuela’s the latest ship to be swallowed by the waves, but that doesn’t make it the crest.

      “You have here an audience of-”

      And here we get back to the age old nonsense of “Chavistas and Trumpistas are really, really alike guize. And not just because some can be annoying on the internet.”

      I may not value my time Much, but I value it enough to not spend it refuting this nonsense for the umpteenth time.

      “I encourage you, however, when writing about international law and international institutions, to tell us more about where the principles they are founded on come from, why these institutions are important, what they have accomplished, as well as some of the reasons why they have fallen short and how those points can be remedied.”

      I’d be more than happy to, if given the space and enough time.

      The problem is, my assessment would likely be much more scathing than you or many at CC would care to admit, particularly on the “why they have fallen short and how those points can be rectified.”

      The thing is, the values we cherish- democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law, etc….

      …THEY may be universal, but they didn’t originate Universally and they sure as hell have not been championed universally. You mention the Nuremburg Trials- laud them to high heaven and assert blandly that they were Good Things-, but ever care to imagine what Nuremburg Trials would be like if htey were conducted in the legal tradition inherited from “Socialist Legalism” in the USSR? Or Chinese Jurisprudence?

      Somehow I doubt it.

      The cruel, ugly fact that holds up our beautiful ideals is that they are usually supported by a minority of national governments and organizations, even within the institutions they created like the UN. And if they lose, there is precious little to prevent the thugs of the world from using the organs crafted for justice or free intercourse to commit injustice.

      “We don’t have the luxury of spending half our breath apologizing for democracy, the rule of law and international order any more. ”

      No.

      You have the duty of doing so.

      “The flaws are apparent. They don’t justify throwing these things out.”

      They do justify throwing aspects of them out if they do not Work. I personally advocate making changes only gradually, and even throwing out as little as humanly possible. You might say seeking to *conserve* this order, or approaching it *conservatively.*

      But nothing lasts forever.

      “It doesn’t much matter here, in this little corner of the internet, but it matters a lot out there.
      Use your skills above all to defend these things.”

      Not all principles or ideals are created equal.

      And an injustice does not become just simply because it is voted on by a majority, as in ancient Athens.

      Better to focus on outlining the values and principles that gave rise to the lofty things you mention, and why they should be upheld. Even if it means upholding them alone against the tide.

      “Use this, your absolute worst kind of audience, ”

      This…

      This is disgusting.

      Your hatred for many of your fellow commenters goes without saying, and frankly I have my issues with CC’s comments section too. Including you.

      But I would NEVER be stupid enough to think this is the “worst kind of audience.”

      How many debates do you think CC’s commenters have crashed with truncheons, Blackshirt style? Or for that matter, Antifa style?

      You’re so sheltered you can’t even realize that there are far worse audiences than CC’s. And you’re so shameless you act as if we should take you seriously.

      “to practice that skill you obviously have, and defend those principles to which you have dedicated yourself.”

      For once, we agree.

    • The missing piece of any intervention plan is a legitimate government in exile. It is critical to have the necessary people in place that can be quickly installed as an interim government.
      This is a major stumbling block. The opposition is fractured with no clear “front runner” that the populace will broadly support. A military coup at best will exchange one group of criminals for another and at worst may ignite a civil war between all of the factions competing to maintain control of their fiefdoms.
      The corruption runs so deep, the 1300 generals may become 1300 cornered rats with everything to lose.

      The following is from a National Post reprint of a Bloomberg article.

      “You need to have a very strong group of people who can credibly take over, and it’s not clear that there’s a faction in the Venezuelan military or security services that wants that,” he said. “So you’re talking about essentially going in and somehow replacing the entire structure of governance and hoping that somehow somebody is going to back you.”

      Still, Tulane University’s Smilde noted: “Given the lack of democratic alternatives, and given the fact that what was once a nuisance is now a regional migration crisis, it’s not surprising that this talk that has existed for a long time is now becoming more widespread.”

      https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trumps-venezuela-military-option-once-scoffed-at-is-now-gaining-backers-as-millions-flee-the-crippled-country

      • John to a point i agree, But the however is;
        “a legitimate government in exile.” As we found when we went into Iraq, not utilizing the Baath party was a huge mistake, i think that lessons have been learnt here. There are also parallels with how we experienced vacuums being filled in the former Yugoslavia, but also how we hunted down the criminals involved…..they were all fun times for me.
        I believe that with an exiled Tribunal of Justice, personalities like MCM, Capriles and Leopoldo. That there is a legitimate government in waiting that has allready been acknowledged worldwide.
        To me i think that this is a very strong start point, not ideal and complete by any means but a start point, which puts the kinetic action that is needed in a strong position.
        If we agree that the majority of government employees are suffering, like the rest of the population, then i can see widespread support for change.
        For me i asses that current strategy and atmospherics is changing to a more interventionist approach in the near future.
        You never have a perfect scenario in life or politics, but sometimes you need to roll the dice.
        Are the Americans and South American countries going to allow expansion by China and Russia?
        I dont think so.

          • Crusader,
            Thank you for the thought provoking reply.
            I do agree that the “De-Baathification” of Iraq was an expensive and painful error. The dismissal of low level party members caused much resentment and left nobody with the experience and know how to maintain public services.
            Concerns about loyalty and sabotage were over blown.
            I remember General Patton’s reply to criticism that he was employing Nazis during the initial occupation of Germany. “At least the trains are running on time.” The press had a field day when he went on to say that being a Nazi was similar to having to be a Democrat to get a federal job. “Patton compares Democrats to Nazis!!” were some of the headlines.
            Another major difference between Iraq and Venezuela is that the people running the public services in Iraq were in place and the services were functioning until the invasion.
            PDVSA stands out for having a bloated payroll without the people that have the ability to run the oil infrastructure. It is possible that the electric, water and sanitation entities have also suffered the same fate. The competent professionals are already gone. What is left is people that were hired solely because they were Chavistas.
            As for the government in exile. I still believe that it is the best option. The National Assembly is globally recognized as the only legitimately elected government authority. In the absence of any government in exile, the National Assembly would need to act swiftly to install a head of state or a ruling council.
            The greatest immediate challenge may not be the military. The corrupt police, national guard and collectives that have conspired in oppressing, torturing and murdering the population will need to be dealt with swiftly. This power vacuum created by the need to immediately neutralize these factions and at the same time restore some stability to the streets, is a daunting problem.
            I do believe that the realization that Venezuela can not be solved democratically from within is going to have to be accepted.
            Ayn Rand’s quote that “You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” comes to mind.

          • John, only one observation from what you say.
            In my opinion PDVSA is a cooked goose, and will have no say in the future government as a strong entity, and certainly will not run the oil industry any more.
            I would not be surprised if the oil agreements with the big 5 western oil companies has already been agreed.
            Future profits will go direct to the government treasury in parallel to barrels of oil produced. I also think this is more favourable with the IMF and World Bank, and will run in synergie with funds from both of those organisations.
            From my years of experience in Iraq, i would confidently say that this is the only way that the huge investment that is needed by the said oil companies will be given.
            It has been shown that unfortunately PDVSA could not be trusted with any of this, nor does it have the prerequisite level of excellence to work within international standards such as Health and safety etc etc at least not for the short time.
            Once this has been achieved it will serve two purposes simultaneously. The recent oil deals within Maduros time (mainly Chinese) will be nullified, even if it has to go to international arbitration. PDVSAs influence will be extremely weakened as a government tool for power.
            This is not a bad thing for any new Opposition Unity Government, and is a strategic win for team USA.
            With regards to infrastructure the US Army Corps of Engineers gained invaluable experience in Iraq to normalize and repair local infrastructure, a task they were completing during the insurgency.
            So to me the horizon is seen with a cup half full approach, but you never know for sure.

  4. Crusader,
    I think we both agree that doing nothing is no longer an option.
    The longer this regime is in power, the more death and suffering will occur.
    The regime is the cause of this humanitarian crisis and has no part to play in ending it.
    Thank you for a thoughtful dialogue.

    • I disagree. The only way forward once the chavista menace is out of power is a transition government appointed mostly of technocrats from the IMF and World Bank. The opposition is far to compromised.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here