Twitter thread in Spanish by José Mario de la Garza, a human rights lawyer in Mexico, translated using Google Translate:
1. Overthrowing a dictator sounds morally right. No one mourns a tyrant. But international law wasn't built to protect the good, but to restrain the powerful. That's why it prohibits force almost without exception: not because it ignores injustice, but because it knows that if each country decides whom to "liberate" by force, the world reverts to the law of the strongest.
2. The problem is not Maduro. The problem is the precedent. When military force is used to change governments without clear rules, sovereignty ceases to be a limit and becomes an obstacle. Today it is âoverthrowing a dictatorâ; tomorrow it will be âcorrecting an election,â âprotecting interests,â ârestoring order.â The law does not absolve dictatorships, but neither does it legitimize unilateral crusades.
Contâd:
3. The uncomfortable question is not whether a tyrant deserves to fall, but who decides when and how. Because history teaches something brutal: removing a dictator is easy; building justice afterward is not. And when legality is broken in the name of good, what almost always follows is not freedom, but chaos, violence, and new victims. The law exists to remind us of this, even when it makes us uncomfortable.
Maduro isn't the problem: he's the face of the problem. Removing him from power would be merely opening the door. Behind him is the machine: RodrĂguez, Cabello, the military command, the operators of repression and plunder. If you only change the person at the top and leave the system intact, what follows isn't democracy: it's a reshuffling.
And there's something even more difficult: Chavismo didn't just capture institutions, it captured daily life. Economy, media, bureaucracy, employment, fear, favors, blackmail. A country can't be "de-Chavistaized" by decree or by an electoral miracle. The real transition begins when that network is broken without setting the country ablaze.
The challenge is enormous, and it's also a moral one: to unite without vengeance, but without impunity. Targeted justice for those most responsible, truth for the victims, guarantees that the rest will dismantle the system, and a plan for people to live againânot just survive. Because freedom doesn't come with a new president: it comes when the state ceases to be a threat.
Best thing Iâve read this morning, from a human rights lawyer in Mexico. Translation is in the ALT-text.
