The United States’ unilateral actions in Venezuela have serious implications for the Western hemisphere because they represent a grave violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, said Singapore’s Senior Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, on Thursday.
“While Venezuela is a complicated country with all its political problems, that does not justify military intervention by one country in another, unilaterally and without any proper authorisation,” he said.
Loong criticised the US action of capturing Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, and raised apprehensions about the move’s broader implications for small nations that are not well defended against larger, territorially-ambitious nations.
The US military captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a military operation on January 3. The two now face charges of narco-terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracy, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices in the US.
“The short-term consequence of the military intervention may be that it works and is a spectacular success. However, in the long term, I think that is something which we have to worry about,” Loong added.
From the point of view of a small nation, he said that “if that is how the international order is going to be governed, we have a problem”.
On January 4, a day after US forces captured Maduro, Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the country is deeply committed to honouring international law and the principles of the UN Charter that safeguard the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all states, especially small states.
“One of the most worrying developments is that the United States has been more willing to act unilaterally when it sees its national interests require it,” Loong remarked.
This is a dangerous and problematic development that threatens the existence of the international order, especially for smaller nations, he observed, warning that “going to war has grievous and very unpredictable consequences”.
The US’ assault on Venezuela has been condemned by most of the world’s countries, who have questioned the legality of capturing and prosecuting a country’s sitting head of state in a US federal court, which lacks extra-territorial standing.
