Philosophy of War/Imperialism

In early January of this year, the US undertook a direct military intervention in Venezuela, bombing parts of the country including the capital and then going ahead to capture the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The US military took him and his wife and brought them to New York, where they were charged with several crimes including narcoterrorism.

Many countries and international organizations voiced their views and opinions regarding this action. Many were quick to condemn this action by the US, saying it was an infringement of their right to self-determinism or making their own decisions and also an infringement of international law. This has also raised several philosophical/ethical questions. In common usage, imperialism refers to a situation where one country, through its power, dominates another country that is weaker.

Some people have argued that this action by the US is an attempt at empire building or imperialism, where another country’s future politics is controlled through military action and also how their natural resources are going to be allocated. The philosophical issue with this action is that many people do not see it as an attempt at police action or saving humanity.

The concept of sovereignty implies that each people must have the right to determine their course of political action without any coercion. From the point of view of moral and legal scholars who believe in the right to self-determination, the removal of a foreign leader by force without the sanction of international authorities brings up the point of whether right is on the side of might, or whether moral constraints on powerful nations are ever justified.

On the other hand, there are many people in and outside the US who are welcoming the removal of Maduro on the basis of the long period of economic collapse and human rights abuses in Venezuela. This is an example of how messy politics can be. Everyone may agree that the Maduro regime is an authoritarian and corrupt one, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is in support of military intervention in Venezuela. Philosophically, we are challenged to examine whether we have the right to intervene in the affairs of another nation and whether we have the right to use force in support of our values.

This case, therefore, illustrates the effect of language and narrative on the shaping of opinion. The language of the attackers, as well as that of the media, is that of fighting crime, while that of the opponents is that of empire and aggression, even though they refer to the same act. The narratives, therefore, are crucial, as they influence the assessment of the act and the willingness to engage in the future in the same way. If people believe that powerful countries have the right to intervene at their own discretion, then the world may become an unstable place for everyone.

This case, therefore, challenges us to think about some of the deeper questions about the world we live in, the values we believe in, and the ways in which we think about the respect we have for others, especially when powerful countries have the ability to impose their will with ease, the values of justice, autonomy, and the respect we have for the dignity of individuals, even when we believe that some people may benefit from the act.