Introduction
There are silences that do not express prudence or balance. They express a position.
In Uruguay, the Frente Amplio deliberately avoided clearly qualifying Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
The Political Decision Behind the Silence
This silence, and the explicit refusal to define it as a dictatorship, was not neutral. It was a political decision that reveals some find abuses worthy of condemnation only when they come from ideological adversaries.
From Omission to Complicity
The silence ceases to be omission and becomes a message. A message that relativizes, that hierarchically ranks victims according to political convenience. This is where ethics degrades.
Human rights do not admit a double standard. They are not suspended due to party affiliation or negotiated based on ideological belonging.
The Incoherence of Ideological Solidarity
None of this implies endorsing foreign interventions.
Precisely out of respect for international law and the self-determination of peoples, condemning a dictatorship cannot be relativized or silenced.
Moreover, it is incoherent to denounce certain interventions while remaining silent on others that have been operating in Venezuela for years.
It also does not imply accepting simplistic readings of U.S. actions.
Every intervention raises legitimate questions: strategic interests, energy resources, geopolitical repositioning. However, this debate cannot serve as a moral cover.
The Focus Should Be on Caracas and the Venezuelan People
The core issue lies in Caracas and with the Venezuelan people: deprived of freely choosing, expressing themselves without fear, and living without persecution or exile.
The Selective Defense of Human Rights
When the defense of human rights becomes selective, it ceases to be a defense.
Human rights do not admit a double standard. When ethics is subordinated to ideology, it stops guiding and starts concealing.
The objective should be clear: peace, genuine respect for human rights, and full democracy with institutional guarantees, alternation, and control.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: Does condemning Venezuela’s dictatorship imply endorsing foreign interventions? A: No. It stems from respect for international law and the self-determination of peoples.
- Q: Is it coherent to denounce certain interventions while remaining silent on others in Venezuela? A: No, it is incoherent.
- Q: Does critiquing U.S. actions imply accepting simplistic readings? A: No, it raises legitimate questions about strategic interests and geopolitical repositioning, but this debate cannot serve as a moral cover.
- Q: Where should our focus be regarding Venezuela? A: The focus should be on Caracas and the Venezuelan people, their rights to freely choose, express themselves without fear, and live without persecution or exile.
- Q: What happens when the defense of human rights becomes selective? A: It ceases to be a genuine defense of human rights.
- Q: What should be our clear objective regarding Venezuela? A: The objective should be peace, genuine respect for human rights, and full democracy with institutional guarantees, alternation, and control.
