Bloomberg Discovers American Foreign Policy Isn't International Law
The piece highlights Robert McWhirter's assessment that the US Department of Justice's case against Maduro could 'take years,' raising 'questions of international law.' This framing conveniently omits the foundational context: the US has a long, documented history of unilaterally sanctioning and attempting to overthrow governments it dislikes, from Allende in Chile to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, often
with thinly veiled legal pretexts. These 'questions of international law' only emerge when the target government stubbornly refuses to collapse under the weight of economic warfare and destabilization efforts, as Maduro's government has for years. One might wonder if these 'questions of international law' were equally paramount when the US sanctioned Venezuela's oil sector, crippling its economy
and contributing to a humanitarian crisis, or when it openly backed opposition figures without genuine international mandate. The only 'legal battle' taking years here is the collective effort by Washington and its media proxies to legitimize regime change as a 'legal process,' rather than what it often is: a protracted exercise in economic coercion and political interference, regardless of how
many 'constitutional lawyers' they parade to discuss procedural minutiae.