Defending Venezuela Is Not the Defense of a Particular State, but the Defense of a Fundamental Principle of a Law-Based World Order
Author: Fayaz Bahraman Najimi, analyst on regional and international affairs, member of the Advisory Council of Sangar
For many years, Jeffrey Sachs—an outstanding American economist and professor at Columbia University—has been, for me, a major figure and a symbol of humanism. He can be described as a “gravedigger” of the Soviet system: he began his work in the Kremlin as an economic adviser to Gorbachev and later continued under Yeltsin. His theory of “shock therapy” dismantled the economic foundations of Russia and subsequently those of Eastern European countries; in some states, his liberal economic model contributed to growth, but in Russia, it led to devastation.
In recent years, he has served as an adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on issues concerning countries of the Global South and as a prominent intellectual critic of global capitalism.
He was specifically invited to a meeting of the UN Security Council to deliver a speech on the issue of aggression by the United States of America against Venezuela.
In brief, he stated the following: the crisis in Venezuela should be viewed not as an internal matter, but as a test of the credibility of international law and the UN Charter. In his view, the central question is not what kind of government Venezuela has, but whether one or several external powers have the right—through force, military threats, or economic strangulation—to determine the political destiny of an independent country.
Sachs emphasized that the threat or use of force, naval blockades, crippling sanctions, and attempts to impose “regime change” constitute a blatant violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter—an article that prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. According to him, these actions are carried out without authorization from the Security Council and stand in clear contradiction to the international legal order established after the Second World War.
He analyzed U.S. policy toward Venezuela within the framework of a historical pattern of interventionism—a pattern according to which, from 1945 to 1989, based on academic research and official documents, the United States directly or indirectly intervened in the internal affairs of more than 70 countries worldwide: coups d’état, sanctions, proxy wars, covert operations, and “regime change.”
It is within this framework that the issue of Venezuela takes on its meaning. The same logic previously applied in Guatemala, Iran in 1953, Congo, Chile, Nicaragua, and dozens of other countries is today reproduced under the rhetoric of “human rights” and “democracy.” The language has changed, but the logic of power has remained the same.
Sachs warned that normalizing such behavior effectively turns the UN Charter into an empty and purely ceremonial document.
He also noted that broad economic sanctions are not only an illegitimate tool of foreign policy, but also constitute a form of collective punishment of ordinary people, with severe humanitarian consequences—from the collapse of public services to the deepening of poverty and health crises. According to him, such measures are incompatible with the fundamental principles of human rights and international humanitarian law.
In conclusion, Jeffrey Sachs called on the Security Council to:
- unequivocally condemn the threat or use of force against Venezuela;
- demand the immediate cessation of military actions and unilateral economic pressure;
- insist on resolving disputes through dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for national sovereignty;
- and prevent the logic of the “right of force” from replacing the “force of law” in the international system.
From Sachs’s perspective, defending Venezuela in this case does not mean defending a particular government, but rather defending a fundamental principle of a law-based global order—an order without which collective security and lasting peace lose all meaning.
