Australia should be able to tell United States when we disagree with its actions

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores pleaded not guilty to drug and weapons charges in a New York court. Maduro told Judge Alvin Hellerstein, “I am innocent, I am not guilty. I am an honest man. I am the president of the republic of Venezuela… I was kidnapped here.” The judge postponed the case to March 17.

The legal protocols presented as evidence in court stand in stark contrast to how Maduro and his wife got to this point. Over the weekend, US forces raided his compound in Venezuela and took the duo out of the country. There was little crying around the world for the death of the dictator leader who played a leading role in the failure of the state. Five years ago he was indicted by the United States on narco-terrorism charges for allegedly running a scheme to ship tons of cocaine to the United States.

He denied the allegations. He appeared to lose the election by a landslide in 2024, but he retained power through a violent crackdown on his political rivals.

But the question remains: Do the ends justify the means in his removal? Geoffrey Robertson, KC, was president of the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal in Sierra Leone and is the author of: World War Crimesargued Age It was stated on Monday that there is no legal difference between Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine and Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela. The American indictment submitted to the court “granted no retroactive extraterritorial authority to arrest or imprison.” [Maduro and Flores] or occupying or annexing their nation. “No agreement has allowed this and no international court has approved it.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s immediate response was appropriate and characteristically diplomatic: Australia was monitoring developments; Everyone should support dialogue and diplomacy to ensure regional stability and prevent escalation of tensions. Australia had expressed concerns about the situation in Venezuela, including respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Loading

Albanese concluded: “We continue to support a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela that reflects international law and the will of the Venezuelan people.”

It is not a harsh condemnation of the US president or his abandonment of international law. Considering that last sentence, it becomes clear that the prime minister views upholding international law through different lenses depending on who is defending it and who is breaking it. The United Nations was not so silent. The US action was criticized at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Russia and China demanded the release of Maduro and Flores.

Russia’s credibility, in particular, has been damaged by its actions in Ukraine, while China’s stated ambitions for Taiwan and its repeated disregard for trade rules also weaken Russia’s position. Yet how can Australia criticize these countries for not following the rules and remaining silent? It is because of such hypocrisies that multilateral systems collapse.