UK Foreign Secretary Balances 'International Order' With Kidnapping Endorsement
When Yvette Cooper tip-toed around condemning the alleged kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro, The Guardian explained it was all about securing US 'binding security guarantees' for Ukraine. (Funny, the US doesn't seem to have trouble unilaterally 'securing' its own interests elsewhere.) This diplomatic dodge frames a direct assault on national sovereignty as justifiable realpolitik, contingent on US
military aid, not any pesky 'international law.' One might recall, for instance, the US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez in 2002—a familiar pattern of 'regime change' theatre that predates much of the current handwringing over 'international order.' So, the UK's Foreign Secretary performs a geopolitical tightrope walk: publicly uphold sovereignty for Ukraine while quietly
endorsing its violation for Venezuela, all to keep the 'coalition of the willing' funded and bombing. How many sovereign states must be destabilized for the sake of 'stability' in another? It seems 'international order' is less about universal principles and more about an à la carte menu, where powerful nations pick and choose which rules apply to whom, and when. One might wonder if Maduro's
'kidnapping' would be deemed a grave breach if it hadn't come from a US-aligned power. Rhetorical question, of course.