Re: 鈥淐anadians should reject our shameful Venezuelan policy,鈥� comment, March 3.
William Geimer鈥檚 opinion piece on why sa国际传媒 should not become involved in Venezuela, 脿 la Trump and the Americans, has a double-edged sword. On the one hand, as he succinctly and passionately states, intervention in another country is a dangerous and often failing game.
However, to do nothing, in the face of enormous human suffering (think of Syria or Nazi Germany as extreme examples) makes a nation susceptible to the 鈥淲hat did you do in the war, Daddy?鈥� criticism, which we all are obliged to consider. The key is: When is a nation on the brink of disaster for the health and welfare of its citizens? Ah, but many will claim, is that not what the UN is for?
Well, yes, but there are times the UN (50 nations currently support intervention) will not act due to politics. That is when the hard decision must be made. If the people are starving or without health care, then a nation might have to get involved.
鈥楾is a messy business. But sometimes it must be asked: 鈥淚f not us, whom; if not now, when?鈥� Unfortunately, under the current U.S. Trump administration, the credibility upon which any intervention would be enshrined is suspect.
Steve C. Faraher-Amidon
Comox
