Federico Reyes Heroles
Bodin’s sovereignty already established the differences between the State and the government. Who should we defend?
It is impossible to demand foresight from the drafters of the United Nations Charter 80 years ago. The world is a different place now. The drafting of that document was aimed at fostering peace among nations and promoting bilateral and multilateral relations. But Article 51 already states: “Nothing in this Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member…” The Security Council should be the body responsible for resolving such situations. The term “sovereignty” was not the main “key idea” in 1945. But since then, a mechanism has been established for investigating citizen complaints. The first point is fraud, bribery… “Unauthorized external activities, violations…” and a long list of others.
The world changed, and the UN languished. Complaints of all kinds became futile. Meanwhile, the Inter-American Human Rights System emerged within the framework of the OAS (1949), with the Inter-American Commission and Court. Its approach was a significant advance: placing human rights—supported by international conventions—in a hierarchical order superior to that of the State itself. It is about defending the human beings who make up a nation. If the State violates their rights, there must be instances that protect them: fraud, freedoms, and the integrity of persons in all orders. Even before, the dilemma already existed. Bodin’s sovereignty already established the differences between the State and the government. Who should we defend?
Today, the priority is unequivocal. Governments degrade, and the people suffer. Invoking the “Cuban Revolution” as an unbreakable link between the two nations is demagoguery. Giving away oil to defend dictators is an ethically vile act. Each nation gives itself the form of government it chooses. But the limits are very clear: freedoms of all kinds, only then can there be free elections; respect for the law and the separation of powers. That is what helps nations. Today, Cubans are starving after decades of systematic repression. Around seven million have fled Venezuela. Who do we defend? And Nicaragua, Morales’ Bolivia, and…
The strength of the enemies of 2025 is unprecedented: an international network that traffics drugs, fuel, cash, and people. Democracy? Mexico no longer has an independent judiciary, a basic requirement. Sovereignty? But narco-power controls a third of the territory. Of course, Trump cares more about oil than Venezuelan democracy. But perhaps Latin America should be more self-critical. Maduro committed various acts of fraud, persecution, and actions against human dignity. Thousands of murders.
“Narco-terrorist” is why the first charge of the New York District Court, in its first line, clarifies that for 25 years, the defendant has abused his public positions and corrupted what were once legitimate institutions to introduce tons of cocaine into that country. Self-critical, because throughout the region and in the eyes of the world, dictators who persecute and disappear human beings have taken power. The shock is regional. And Mexico?
The direct accusations against individuals close to the president for belonging to these mafias make us vulnerable. Although the Secretariat of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC) is showing clear signs of fighting back, the fact is that there is no high-level political decision that corroborates the government’s willingness to touch those close to it. That is why Trump is so cynical; we have already told them that if they want, we will help them. They have all the information, and we are playing innocent and doctrinaire, right in the year of the trade agreement negotiations. The United States has overthrown dozens of dictators in Latin America, but also legitimate presidents, such as Allende. A Mexican politician? They have been efficient at overthrowing, but not at guiding new democracies. In Venezuela, there is fear and hope. The world hesitates.
People or governments?
Further Reading: