作者： admin

WASHINGTON – Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Albert Ramdin has issued a compelling call for transformative action regarding Venezuela’s ongoing political crisis. Speaking before the OAS Permanent Council during a special session addressing recent developments in Venezuela, Ramdin emphasized that the regional body must evolve beyond mere declaratory forums into a mechanism for coordinated, principled, and sustained intervention.

Ramdin articulated that multilateralism and inter-American cooperation have become indispensable in an increasingly complex global landscape. He underscored that the OAS Charter and inter-American legal framework constitute binding obligations rather than voluntary guidelines for member states. The Secretary General asserted that when democratic principles, human rights, and fundamental tenets of international law face erosion, the hemisphere must respond with collective action.

Expressing profound solidarity with the Venezuelan population, Ramdin characterized support for Venezuela as both a moral imperative and strategic necessity. “A stable, democratic, and prosperous Venezuela serves the interests of all member states,” he declared, emphasizing the inalienable right of Venezuelans to determine their government and leadership through representative democratic processes.

While advocating for robust engagement, Ramdin cautioned member states against actions that might exacerbate tensions or deepen regional divisions. He highlighted the strength of the inter-American system lies in nations’ ability to collaborate constructively despite divergent political and ideological perspectives.

The OAS stands prepared to play an active role within its mandate, respecting principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Ramdin positioned the organization as a potential “honest broker” capable of facilitating dialogue and mediation to reduce tensions and promote peaceful solutions – provided such assistance is requested by member states and Venezuela.

Additionally, Ramdin confirmed the OAS will maintain its monitoring of Venezuela’s human rights situation and continue publicly identifying violations, with particular attention to political prisoners. He reiterated support for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ request to conduct an on-site visit to Venezuela.

The Secretary General outlined concrete OAS mechanisms available to support democratic restoration, including facilitating inclusive dialogue among Venezuelan stakeholders, strengthening democratic institutions and rule of law, supporting structural reforms, and assisting with electoral preparation and observation. The organization could also provide support regarding migration challenges and vulnerable populations in coordination with international partners.

Ramdin concluded with grave concern about recent reports of repression and political persecution, stating that “repression cannot be tolerated anywhere in the hemisphere.” He urged continued collective engagement, open communication, and peaceful lawful solutions benefiting both Venezuela and regional stability.

The recent court appearance of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife before a federal judge in New York on January 5, 2026, has sparked profound legal and diplomatic concerns that extend far beyond a simple criminal proceeding. This case represents a pivotal moment for international legal principles governing sovereign immunity and the limits of national jurisdiction.

At the heart of the matter lies the established doctrine of immunity ratione personae, which grants sitting heads of state, government leaders, and foreign ministers personal immunity from criminal prosecution by foreign national courts. This protection exists not to place leaders above the law, but to prevent judicial systems from becoming instruments of geopolitical retaliation. The immunity is procedural in nature—it blocks prosecution while the leader remains in office, without consideration of moral or political factors.

The United States has attempted to circumvent this principle through a semantic maneuver centered on recognition. The argument suggests that those no longer recognized by Washington as legitimate leaders automatically forfeit their immunity. However, this approach dangerously conflates political recognition—a discretionary act—with the legal consequences of sovereignty. Immunity derives from the office itself, not from the political preferences of third-party states.

Even accepting the US claim of jurisdiction based on extraterritorial drug laws, immunity remains an absolute barrier. Jurisdiction and admissibility are distinct concepts—the ability to apply a law does not grant carte blanche to prosecute anyone. The proper legal sequence requires addressing immunity before substance, a sequence notably ignored in this case.

Previous US precedents involving figures like Noriega provide weak foundation for such a significant legal intervention. Unlike Noriega, Maduro exercised effective power, received international recognition from multiple states, and functioned as Venezuela’s head of state. Washington’s political attempt to redefine his status cannot override established principles of international law.

The manner of Maduro’s appearance in US custody—whether termed capture, law enforcement operation, or abduction—carries legal significance. The domestic US doctrine that unlawful transfer does not impede prosecution holds no weight in international law regarding immunity questions. One cannot purify a proceeding by first violating the law and then asserting judicial competence.

This case does not suggest that heads of state should never face accountability. Appropriate mechanisms exist through international courts or post-term prosecution. This distinction protects not individuals but the international legal system itself. Destroying the system to prosecute one individual normalizes a world where powerful nations can criminalize political opponents through their judicial systems.

The potential consequences are both predictable and dangerous. If the US legitimizes this approach, it invites reciprocal actions from other nations. Today Venezuela, tomorrow another nation. National courts would become tools of geopolitical conflict, transforming international law from a protective shield into an à la carte menu selected according to political convenience.

The inescapable conclusion remains: as long as Maduro qualifies as a sitting head of state, the US prosecution is inadmissible. This position reflects not the severity of alleged crimes but the necessary requirements of legal order. The alternative is arbitrariness—and arbitrariness marks the end of meaningful law.