U.S. intervention is always a subject of intense debate. It is almost as if people have to balance our national security interest with ethics. Promoting democratic values are always the fundamental reasons to justify an intervention. In this case, Venezuela has experienced public dissent over the countries rising rate of inflation and less democratic style of governance. When young protesters arrive, government backed security forces come to combat them. For this reason, Secretary Kerry has been a harsh critic of President Maduro.
Kerry states that the State Department is trying to find ways to to get the government of Venezuela to engage with their citizens. The question is "how so?". Taking a stance and fighting for democracy to select countries looks promising to dissenting citizens, but threatening to the governments that did not necessarily ask for the help. I consider this promotion of intervention via U.S. democratic values as an offensive form of diplomacy. It engages in the international community in a way where governments feel the need to defend themselves, instead of speak openly and civil about an issue.
Without clear intentions on why Kerry wants to specifically reinforce a democracy and stability within Venezuela, speculation will occur. Will there be a Coup D'etat against the government? Can they arm protesters? Is the U.S. after resources? These are all widely speculated questions that destabilized governments fear when it comes to U.S. intervention.
Bolivian president Evo Morales believes that the U.S. is trying to intervene in order to take control over oil reserves. He also feels strongly against U.S. capitalism and views their power in the world as colonialism. For wide assumptions such as these, potential U.S. intervention deeply harms our public diplomacy when intent is not clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment