BRICS economies monitor situation in Venezuela following U S operations

Key Concepts

• International Law: The set of rules and principles governing relations between states.
• BRICS: An acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – a grouping of major emerging economies.
• Multilateralism: The policy or practice of multilateral cooperation, particularly in international relations.
• Interventionism: A policy of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
• Sovereignty: The supreme power or authority of a state within its own territory.

US Intervention in Venezuela & International Law

The interview focuses on the legality and implications of the US action in Venezuela, occurring just days prior to the conversation. Paulo Borba, an international law professor, asserts that the US action is “totally against international law and also contrary to American law.” He emphasizes this isn’t an isolated incident, citing “more than 20 interventions” by the United States in Latin America since the 19th century. This historical context underscores a pattern of interventionist policy.

BRICS Nations’ Response

While a unified, joint statement from the BRICS nations hasn’t been issued, Borba notes a significant degree of cohesion in their individual responses. Specifically, four of the original five BRICS members – Brazil, Russia, China, and South Africa – have released statements condemning the US action. These statements consistently characterize the intervention as “unacceptable,” “abusive,” and “illegal,” and call for the return of Nicolás Maduro to Venezuela. Borba highlights the alignment of these positions despite the lack of a formal joint declaration.

China’s Position

Borba assesses China’s positioning as “perfectly coherent,” aligning with the statements made by Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. He explicitly states his agreement with the Chinese government’s condemnation of the intervention as abusive and a violation of international law, further reinforcing the call for Maduro’s return to Venezuela.

Impact on Multilateralism

The discussion addresses concerns that the US action could signal the end of the multilateral system. Borba refutes this extreme claim, stating, “it certainly does not improve multilateralism, but to say that it threatens or puts an end to that… fortunately that’s not true.” He stresses the continued existence and importance of international law, even when violated. He points out that even countries acting against international law attempt to justify their actions as if they are legal, demonstrating an implicit acknowledgement of the law’s existence.

Borba emphasizes the crucial role of multilateral institutions in maintaining “some order in the world,” despite current global instability. He states, “We do need then to keep some order in the world notwithstanding all the mess that’s going around right now.” This underscores the necessity of upholding and reinforcing these institutions, even in the face of violations.

Logical Connections & Synthesis

The interview progresses logically from establishing the illegality of the US intervention under international law, to examining the responses of key global actors (specifically the BRICS nations), and finally, to assessing the broader implications for the international order. The core argument is that while the US action is a serious violation of international law and detrimental to multilateralism, it does not necessarily represent its collapse. The continued assertion of legal principles, even by the violator, and the importance placed on multilateral institutions by Borba, suggest a resilient, though challenged, international legal framework. The consistent condemnation from key BRICS nations demonstrates a growing resistance to unilateral interventionism.