Editorial: Venezuela Must Decide Its Future — Not Washington

 

By Armando Garcia Alvarez

The latest U.S. military intervention in Venezuela marks a dangerous rupture in hemispheric relations and a grave setback for international law. Whatever one’s view of the Maduro government, foreign-imposed change through force is neither legitimate nor sustainable. History across Latin America teaches a painful lesson: interventions framed as “liberation” too often end in dependency, instability, and prolonged suffering for ordinary people.

We condemn the U.S. action not because the current Venezuelan leadership is beyond criticism, but because sovereignty is not conditional. It is a foundational principle of the international system. When Estados Unidos bypasses diplomacy and multilateral mechanisms to impose outcomes by force, it erodes the very norms it claims to defend. The precedent is corrosive: today Caracas, tomorrow any capital deemed inconvenient.

The False Choice: Autocracy or Puppet

The debate now being forced upon Venezuelans is a false binary: either the same entrenched regime or a leader installed and sustained by Washington. This framing is profoundly undemocratic. Venezuela deserves a third path—a Venezuelan solution, born of internal dialogue, free elections with credible guarantees, and international accompaniment that supports, not dictates.

Replacing one concentration of power with another—especially one tethered to foreign interests—will not heal Venezuela’s wounds. A “U.S.-approved” government risks immediate legitimacy deficits at home and across the region, locking the country into permanent polarization. The result would be governance by survival, not consent.

Lessons from the Region

Latin America’s modern history is crowded with interventions that promised order and delivered chaos. From coups cloaked in anti-communism to economic shock therapies imposed without social consent, the pattern is consistent: external control undermines institutions and deepens inequality. Venezuela’s crisis—economic collapse, mass migration, political repression—cannot be solved by repeating those errors.

True stability requires institutional rebuilding, not regime engineering. It requires restoring checks and balances, protecting civil liberties, and creating economic conditions that allow families to live with dignity. None of that can be parachuted in.

What Should Lead Venezuela?

Not a single strongman, and not a foreign proxy. Venezuela should be led by a transitional, plural authority emerging from negotiations among Venezuelan actors—government, opposition, civil society, labor, and faith communities—under international guarantees that respect sovereignty. The role of the international community should be facilitative: sanctions relief tied to verifiable steps, humanitarian corridors insulated from politics, and electoral observation agreed by all sides.

Regional bodies and the United Nations should anchor this process. Latin American neighbors, who bear the human cost of displacement, must have a decisive voice. Washington’s influence, if any, should be indirect and accountable, channeled through multilateral frameworks—not gunships and ultimatums.

The Human Cost Must Come First

Every escalation increases the risk to civilians. The poorest neighborhoods pay first: power outages, shortages, fear. Intervention hardens positions and shrinks space for compromise. If the stated goal is human rights, then ending violence and enabling aid must take precedence over symbolic victories.

Our Position

We condemn the U.S. intervention as unlawful and counterproductive. We reject the notion that Venezuela must choose between the same regime or a U.S. puppet. The only legitimate path forward is self-determination, grounded in Venezuelan consensus and protected by international law.

The future of Venezuela belongs to Venezuelans—not to Washington, not to any palace, and not to the logic of force. The world should help Venezuela stand, not decide who rules it.