When a state claims sovereignty

THE EDITOR: The Venezuelan situation has given rise to much talk about national “sovereignty” as with the PM ‘taking umbrage” over the US Ambassador’s seeming violation of the nation’s sovereignty by daring to criticise its non- interventionist stance on Venezuela, and the controversy over the US and its allies recognising Guaido as the interim President even as Maduro as the duly “elected” President is still in power. But what really constitutes the sovereignty of a nation?

A nation may claim”sovereignty” if, by mutual consent and due process of constitutional law, it gains “independence “ from the original “mother country,” like the Caribbean islands gaining independence from Britain, and even India from the same mother country. But what if such independence is in dispute as with Palestine from Israel or Hong Kong from China or even Ukraine from Russia? Can such countries claim “sovereignty”? They may as they often do, but their broad-based legitimacy, to my mind, depends on their degree of acceptance from the international community.

A nation may also claim legitimacy if its leaders are duly elected by the people, but what if the elections were rigged to influence the outcome on behalf those gaining power, and what if those gaining power, even by legitimate means, fail to fulfil their promises to the electorate, but seek to entrench themselves by corrupt means, and further go on to persecute those in opposition to them? Can that nation be still considered sovereign? What if that opposition escalates into wide scale protest over the rock-bottom deterioration of the country as a consequence of what they see as rampant corruption, so much so as to install an “interim “ President? Can that country be still considered “sovereign”?

Can “sovereignty” be accorded to a nation as an absolute right irrespective of its circumstances?” The PM of this country in objecting to the US Ambassador’s criticism of this country’s position of non-intervention in the affairs of Venezuela, is quoted as pointing to the UN charter in the Express of Saturday 26 which “ specifically forbids intervention and interference in a state’s affairs,” going on to emphasise as the report continues, that it doesn’t say “under this circumstance and that circumstance .” But, should sovereignty be an inviolable and absolute right irrespective of its circumstances? Surely that tenet of the UN charter must assume an unwarranted interference in the affairs of a country which is not guilty of the offences above, but what if that country is perceived to be in breach?

The guest editorial of the Jamaican Observer in the Express of Saturday 26 January in its article appropriately entitled “A plea for Venezuela" even as it sees Guaido’s claim to the Presidency as behaviour no different from Maduro’s, outlines a litany of woes involving all forms of persecution of opponents, replacing the National Assembly by his own Constituent Assembly to preserve power and the country being reduced to a den of abject poverty, inter alia. which it places squarely on Maduro’s dictatorial tendencies. The editorial calls for meaningful dialogue with stakeholders putting aside their egos and ambitions for the good of Venezuela, but is the latter possible or would it take the kind of intervention that is on the country’s door step?

As usual , I leave these hard answers to you

Dr ERROL BENJAMIN via e-mail