Sorry about the absence. I was trying to be off for the holidays, and then Iran blew up! You can find my writings on Iran in the Middle East Forum Observer, where I will also be recording a podcast today.
Podcast Link; Writings Archive
Now let’s get to Venezuela.
The U.S. air raid into Venezuela has provoked many objections, a few respectable ones and many less so. But two stand out: That this was an unprecedented violation of sovereignty, and that it was over oil. The first point is a serious issue that requires a serious response. The second one is objectively true, but I fail to see why that is a bad thing.
Let me address a more fundamental question: sovereignty. Sovereignty has been the bedrock of the international order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a principle that America upholds. But while sovereignty matters, its definition has been changing. However, in 1648, sovereignty was vested in the emperor, kings, and princes. That is a principle Americans rebelled against in 1776—something especially important in our semiquincentennial celebration. Rather, we created a popularly sovereign state, where the people are sovereign. This is such an accepted idea that even China pays lip service to it (but nothing more) by calling itself the People’s Republic. Same as Iran, which holds sham elections and also calls itself a republic (Latin for democracy; res publica, for the people). In fact, the most important caveat to sovereignty was championed by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, in the 1990s. The Responsibility to Protect was a nod to popular sovereignty, that autocrats would forgo their territorial integrity if they massacred their own peoples. If you believe in sovereignty and also believe that territorial integrity could be violated to defend nations against their dictators, the only conclusion is that people are sovereign, not autocrats.
