On January 3, the US army, as a result of a 2-hour operation carried out in Venezuela, overthrew the country's president, Nicolas Maduro, from his post. Maduro, who was taken to the US, was brought to trial last night at the New York Court.
This event has caused a great resonance within Venezuela and internationally.
Attitudes towards the international political-military crisis in Venezuela differ. Some justify his capture by citing Maduro's dictatorial nature and his bringing the state into a bad situation. On the other hand, the majority emphasizes that the incident is contrary to international law and UN Charters.
The attitude of political parties in Azerbaijan towards the issue also arouses interest.
Modern.az website has learned the opinions of party leaders.
Elshad Musayev, Chairman of the Great Azerbaijan Party and Milli Majlis deputy, stated that, the actions of the US are contrary to international law and cannot be approved:
“There are two approaches to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US. Some believe that the US has rightly taken these steps against Nicolas Maduro. Because Maduro is a dictator, he falsified elections, engaged in drug trafficking, and the US can bomb any country as it wishes. Those on the other side say that the step taken by the US against Venezuela is not in line with the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter.
Those in the first position, that is, those who consider the US to be in the right, are the Western agency networks and those who want to curry favor with them. They have put themselves forward to be used. Nothing is sacred to them. International law and such are empty concepts for them. They portray themselves as democrats, but in fact, they are Western agency networks. Among these people are party chairmen, as well as media and NGO representatives. They can say anything to everyone, but nothing to the West.
A similar example is the Russian agency network – they can also say anything to everyone, but not to Russia. Or Iran's agency network: anything can be said to everyone, but when something is said against Iran, they become indignant. Unfortunately, agency networks of various countries exist in Azerbaijan, and such people are present within political organizations, as well as among political scientists.
On the other hand, a part of our political community holds the position that these actions of the US are contrary to international law. My opinion is also that the actions of the US are contrary to international law and the UN Charter. The main goal is not to establish democracy in Venezuela. The US has cooperated with many authoritarian regimes and supported them. The US is an imperial state and tries to govern by medieval laws. The goal is to seize Venezuela's natural resources and rare elements.
One might ask, 'Alright, you overthrow a dictator, but why should the US then govern Venezuela and its oil companies?!' These events represent a negative trend. International law should operate everywhere in the world. However, unfortunately, it is not international law but international power that is at work now. Russia first occupied Crimea, and now 20 percent of Ukraine's territory. The US is now occupying Venezuela. There are those who call themselves democrats, and I repeat, they can justify every action of the US. There are such people in Azerbaijan too. The actions of the US are contrary to international law and cannot be approved.”
Akif Naghi, Chairman of the Free Homeland Party: “The US has adopted a policy of full control over the situation in its continent. Countries like Venezuela and Cuba were previously under the influence of the USSR and posed a threat to the US. Later, Russia continued the same policy. However, countries associated with Russia have lived in infamy, with their populations in a state of bankruptcy. Despite possessing abundant resources, the Venezuelan population has lived in poverty. This is also related to Russia. Because Russia has exploited whoever it has maintained relations with.
I believe that countries in the American continent should establish their relations among themselves. I think this step by Trump will have a certain positive impact on global processes. First and foremost, Maduro was a dictator and had brought his country's situation to a bad state. There was no freedom, normal elections were not held, and the population lived in poverty. Considering all this, he should have left. It would have been better if he had left through internal processes.
Such intervention by the US also creates another idea: that it overthrows a country's dictator, but itself aspires to global dictatorship. By sending the message 'I can intervene in any country,' it seeks to keep the world under its dictatorship. This does not create a good impression.
In any case, there is a principle that the end justifies the means. The goal is for democratic structures to be established in countries. But by what means? These means are not appropriate. No matter how pure the target, no matter how correct the goal, the means for it must also be correct and objective. From this perspective, the means cannot be accepted.
The US is an ally of Azerbaijan. At a time when these events were unfolding, a very respectable delegation from the US was holding meetings in Baku, and Mr. President also received that delegation. Interesting messages were conveyed regarding Azerbaijan–US relations.”
Razi Nurullayev, Chairman of the National Front Party, Milli Majlis deputy: “The US conducting a military operation in Venezuelan territory and arresting the head of state, Nicolas Maduro, contradicts the fundamental logic of international law. The main risk here is that legal mechanisms are set aside, and political objectives are resolved by force.
This approach sends a dangerous message to the world: rules are not the same for everyone, and power can override law. Such precedents weaken trust in international relations, increase instability, and create grounds for similar actions to be repeated in other regions.
For other states, including our country, this event is a clear lesson: sovereignty is protected not only by declarations but also by internal stability, measured diplomacy, and balanced policies. If global order is built on the use of force, it promises no one a secure future.”
Mutallim Rahimli, Chairman of the Justice Party: “The recent military operations by the US against Venezuela are contrary to the principles of international law. If a state is powerful, this does not give it the right to occupy another. Venezuelan President Maduro had established an authoritarian regime in his country. The country's population was drowning in economic and social problems. Citizens of the oil-rich country lived in hunger and misery, and the country had turned into a hub for drug trafficking. All this indicates that Maduro could not fulfill his duties as head of state. He will probably remain in Venezuela's history as a shameful president.
However, procedures for his removal from office exist and are enshrined in international law. It is not within the US's authority to implement them. The US has, in effect, acted arbitrarily by capturing the president of another country.
This action by the United States sets a very bad precedent in international relations. Thus, from now on, a powerful country will refer to the incident in Venezuela to attack and occupy a weaker one, and to take its president hostage. Therefore, states will now be forced to resort to military force, rather than international law, to defend themselves.”
Tural Abbasli, Chairman of the White Party: “This issue must be analyzed from many aspects. Naturally, abducting another country's president and his wife at night, disseminating humiliating photos of them bound, and parading him in the streets of New York is an act of barbarism and actions that are contrary to any law and human rights. Yes, I am not saying that Maduro was an angel, that the people loved him, and that he was democratically elected. But if the US is going to capture every leader not democratically elected in this manner, then let's abandon international law and let the US dictate how everyone lives.
This is a step contrary to international law. The UN was established so that sanctions could be applied and common norms adopted in such cases. Otherwise, if Trump comes and says 'he is a bandit, this one is a drug lord,' what significance will the UN have left? If tomorrow Trump says he doesn't like Azerbaijan, then what will we do?
My attitude towards this issue is negative. Maduro should also consider what wrong steps he took that led the people not to stand behind him. Governments should also not create a chasm between themselves and the people.”
