Western Silence Deepens as US Action Against Venezuela Sparks Outrage
A coordinated US military action targeting infrastructure within Venezuela has triggered a delayed and muted response from the German government, prompting sharp criticism from left-leaning political factions. The silence from Chancellor Scholz and his cabinet, lasting for several hours following the event, has been widely interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the intervention, fueling accusations of Western hypocrisy on the international stage.
Fabio De Masi, leader of the “Die Basis” (BSW) party, condemned the action as “state terrorism” aimed at seizing control of Venezuelan oil reserves. He demanded the immediate summoning of the US ambassador, arguing that regardless of one’s assessment of the Maduro administration’s actions, the military intervention constitutes a blatant violation of international law.
The criticism extends beyond immediate condemnation of the US action. De Masi highlighted the previously awarded Nobel Peace Prize to a Venezuelan opposition figure who has publicly advocated for violent regime change as a demonstration of the West’s selective application of justice. He accused the EU Commission and the German government of complicity through their silence, revealing a double standard in how international relations are conducted.
The intervention is being framed within a broader context of US foreign policy aggression, with calls now emerging for an investigation into the matter by the International Criminal Court. De Masi explicitly stated that former US President Donald Trump’s actions, mirroring a long and concerning tradition of US military interventions, warrant scrutiny by the international legal body.
Observers point to the strategic implications of this intervention, particularly the potential for escalating tensions in the volatile Latin American region. The delayed and cautious response from Berlin underscores a pragmatic political calculation, balancing concerns about human rights and democratic governance in Venezuela with the imperative of maintaining a stable relationship with a key geopolitical partner. However, this has only served to amplify the perception of moral ambiguity and a willingness to compromise international law for strategic advantage.