Re the Feb. 10 Miami Herald article “Rubio intensifies his Venezuela rhetoric by suggesting coup to oust ‘dictator.’ ”
The arguments and laws that reject and condemn coups are valid. However, in accordance with the principle that laws have exceptions and limitations, it is necessary to recognize the exceptions — in this case, of bloody tyrannies with authorship in crimes against humanity.
In cases of serious political crises, no matter how severe they may be, the use of peaceful negotiations have been designated as the appropriate and recommended solutions.
But when these negotiations fail or are evaded or ignored, the use of international threats and sanctions is legally valid.
However, history has also shown cases in which such threats and sanctions have been futile and ineffective. Such is the case with Cuba, a dictatorship that has stayed in power for more than half a century. Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuelan regime is following the same path.
On July 4, 1776, American jurists proclaimed and authenticated the independence of the United States based on the right of rebellion and resistance against oppression. The French did the same in 1795.
It is possible that advocates of strict legal interpretation consider inappropriate the method of a coup as a valid alternative to end the Venezuelan tragedy.
In the event that this is impossible because of the Venezuelan armed forces’ monolithic subordination to the regime, an alternative is the international or American military intervention, the latter with justified and accepted historical precedents.
It is rational, including legal latitude and for reasons of humanity, to impose the necessary force to stop the Maduro regime from continuing to perpetrate crimes against humanity with impunity.
Jaime A. Pérez-Singla,
Havana Bar Association
(in exile), Miami