Why Do We Still Believe This Cycle?
From Venezuela to Iraq: The Anatomy of "Humanitarian" Intervention**
 |
| From gemini |
Analyzing what the US has done in Venezuela as a standalone case or reducing it to the figure of Nicolás Maduro is not accurate. This is part of a long-standing and recurring pattern of intervention that has failed repeatedly but is still presented as a moral imperative.
The more troubling question is whether this intervention is right or wrong.That is why, despite the abundance of historical evidence to the contrary, the world continues to believe it.
A Familiar Scenario
The pattern is strikingly consistent:
First, a leader or regime is supported, tolerated, or strategically ignored.
When interests conflict, the same leader is redefined as a dictator, a threat, or a source of instability.
Sanctions are imposed. The economy collapses. Society becomes impoverished.
Then comes the final stage: the intervention justified on the grounds of "popular demand" and humanitarian urgency.
At the initial stage, public approval is generally present. This is not surprising.
When a society is economically oppressed and politically cornered, any change brings a sense of relief. However, this approval is temporary and historically misleading.
Iraq: The Clearest Case
When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, images of the celebrations were broadcast around the world.
Today, many Iraqis openly state that they have become poorer, more insecure, and more dependent since his overthrow.
This is not a matter of nostalgia, nor is it an effort to defend Saddam.
He was authoritarian, oppressive, and pro-violence.
However, his overthrow led to the following:
• The collapse of state institutions
• Failure to use oil revenues for public benefit
This was followed by reconstruction contracts, resource exploitation, and long-term dependency.
The promise of liberation has turned into structural impoverishment.
Libya, Panama, Venezuela
After Gaddafi's overthrow, Libya became a state that had lost its integrity.
In Panama, Noriega was removed from office on charges of drug trafficking, and subsequently a pro-US reconstruction process took place.
There are drug charges in Venezuela; however, these are selectively used as a tool, and the real issue is energy and geopolitical control.
The problem is not that these justifications are entirely fabricated.
The problem lies in their selective application.
In cooperative regimes, similar abuses are tolerated.
In competitive regimes, they become moral emergencies.
Why Does the World Keep Believing?
Because this cycle is sustained by three powerful illusions:
1. The illusion that "if you overthrow the dictator, everything will get better"
Political collapse rarely concerns individuals; it concerns institutions.
2. The misconception that popular approval equals legitimacy
Approval formed under sanctions, deprivation, and isolation is not free consent.
3. The fallacy of "intervention is better than doing nothing"
This approach unfairly grants moral immunity to the intervening power.
While power defines its own actions as order, it views the identical actions of others as chaos.
This Is Not an Ideological Argument
Refusing to intervene does not mean sympathizing with the ousted leader.
One does not need to admire Saddam, Gaddafi, or Maduro to recognize an ongoing injustice.
If legitimacy depended on ideology, the same action would be right or wrong depending on who carried it out.
This is not international law; it is hierarchy.
Conclusion
Venezuela is not the real issue.
The real question is:
Why does a world that has witnessed repeated collapses after interventions still accept intervention as salvation?
Perhaps because the cycle fails the populations—yet continues to serve power.
No comments: