Think of how it grates with the non-interference doctrine enshrined in the UN Charter. Article 2(4) makes it clear the principle prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Such interference, goes the canonical text Oppenheim's International Law, 'must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the mater in question'.
But many countries, most purporting to be of the liberal democratic mould, have been very happy to make Venezuela the exception. President Nicolás Maduro must go, and the Venezuelan opposition leader and President of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó, appointed in his stead. The latter's own bogus theory on usurpation is to claim he is merely dealing with a usurper himself. 'I swear to assume all the powers of the presidency to secure and end to the usurpation.'
On 15 January, the president of the National Assembly was permitted space in The Washington Post to claim his country was witnessing something without precedent, a point that should immediately cast some suspicion on any claim. 'We have a government that has dismantled the state and kidnapped all institutions and manipulate them at will.' Various US publications, in traditional imperial voice, have also been supportive.
But even Guaidó had to concede that his case for Venezuela was not conventional: it could not, for instance, be said that his country was your classic run-of-the-mill dictatorship with packed prisons and death camps. 'The regime may have ties to drug trafficking and guerrilla groups, but we also have a functioning, democratically elected parliament, the National Assembly.'
It did not take US President Donald Trump long to acknowledged Guaidó's declaration as legitimising an interim presidency, one that will ensure a transition of loyalty to the United States. 'The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.' Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Argentina have similarly pitched in, accepting Guaidó as the appropriate interim replacement. More to the point, it is an acknowledgment that the mood is proving increasingly friendly to Washington in these circles.
Other states in Europe have also shown a brazen tendency to lay down timelines and advance demands in favour of Guaidó. 'Unless elections are announced within eight days,' suggested France's unpopular President Emmanuel Macron, 'we will be ready to recognise @jguaido as "President in charge" of Venezuela in order to trigger a political process.' A pretty rich thing coming from a leader whose own legitimacy and aloofness has been mocked in recent months.
Similar demands issued from Spanish Prime Minster Pedro Sanchez, yet another figure who has decided to make Venezuelan politics his beef. 'The government of Spain gives Nicolás Maduro eight days to call free, transparent and democratic elections. If that doesn't happen, Spain will recognise Juan Guaidó as interim president in charge of calling these elections.'
"The schismatic spectacle of two governments seeking to pull the strings has become an absurdly disruptive prospect — and many a countries' self-appointed business."
Maduro's response has been predictably sharp. 'We've had enough interventionism, here we have dignity damn it.' Unfortunately for the Maduro regime, the issue of dignity has little part in the regular foreign incursions, mainly by the United States, that have marked the affairs of Latin America for decades. He can count on some support, though opponents will scoff at the choices: China, Russia and Turkey take the view that non-interference should be the rule.
None of this should be taken to be an endorsement of Maduro. His interpretation of the democratic mandate has been shoddy. The country is going hungry. An initially promising socialist agenda has unravelled. He is of a firm tradition in the Americas: authoritarianism breeds revolt, which breeds authoritarianism.
But Maduro has good reasons to deride opponent and the warm embrace by US officials of the movement seeking to remove the Chávista. The memory of 2002 and the failure on the part of Washington to remove Hugo Chávez remains strong and persistent. Chávez, while resisting the urge to initiate a cleansing bloodbath and broad police measures, neutralised the power of his opponents, be they in the Supreme Court or the corporate media. Maduro has merely been one of Chávez's more enthusiastic students in that regard.
Maduro's fate may well fall to the dispensing grace of the army. So far, the country's defence minister Vladimir Padrino is holding firm, as are other state functionaries who do not feel that Guaidó has made a good enough case. They will not recognise the choice of an opposition leader 'imposed by shadowy interests… outside the law'. Such stances, as history shows, change, but the schismatic spectacle of two governments seeking to pull the strings has become an absurdly disruptive prospect — and many a countries' self-appointed business.
Dr Binoy Kampmark is a former Commonwealth Scholar who lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Main image: Juan Guaidó delivers a speech during a demonstration on 26 January 2019 in Caracas, Venezuela (Marco Bello/Getty Images)