Edward Zammit-Lewis has broken ranks with his colleagues and pronounced his concerns about the US military intervention in Venezuela. The Labour government’s position is the same as the EU’s position but Edward Zammit-Lewis went beyond the EU statement and condemned the US military intervention in Venezuela as an affront to international rule-of-law and the international legal order. He also states that these actions “have created a dangerous precedent”.
I would like these lawyers to explain to us on why there were violations of international law if the intervention was welcomed by the legitimate executive of Venezuela.
The most vocal people condemning the US military intervention have seem to have learnt about Venezuela quite recently, since they have been awfully silent during a decade-plus long of tyrannical rule by Nicolas Maduro who flouted many laws himself. Up to eight million Venezuelans were forced to flee from their country, yet no one cared about the suffering of the Venezuelans which seemed endless under a regime propped up by Cuba, Russia and China.
Is Edward Zammit Lewis really concerned about Malta’s sovereignty? What gives him away is that he states that the US military intervention set a dangerous precedent: how is it so when Vladimir Putin has been violating international law consistently and Europe is now proposing a peace deal with him? Haven’t we already accepted this precedent – which is no precedent at all in history?
If Edward Zammit-Lewis concerned about sovereignty and security he should look at Hurd’s Bank or propose NATO membership. In today’s world, only fools believe that neutrality is a safeguard for sovereignty and security. I also don’t remember the MP being very concerned when Malta’s sovereignty was actually threatened.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply