We have explained to the world our official positions on the US attack on Venezuela, which we invite you to read on our official page at this link:
We will not repeat the content of our article, and we will remain consistent with all our positions. This consistency is certainly rare in all other systems.
The arrest of President Nicolas Maduro and his transportation to the United States against his will is unusual. It certainly does not comply with international conventions, but it is perfectly suited, as a method, to old and failed traditional systems, in which the strongest almost always prevails over the weakest, unless the weakest receives assistance from other countries.
There have been deaths and injuries in this military operation, and this is tragic and must be condemned. But we smile at the indignation of those who, until recently, defended dictatorial policies that we consider criminal, and now, if the United States does so, they protest. These positions, with a preference for dictatorships, are inconceivable and incomprehensible to anyone with intelligence, capable of using logic, common sense, and mutual respect.
It is not our job to judge President Maduro, his wife, and all those under investigation and accused of very serious crimes. Unlike many others, we leave it to the courts to decide, based on their respective evidence and in accordance with the law. For us, being investigated or suspected does not automatically mean being guilty.
Politically, we consider Venezuela a failed socialist system, one that has created nothing good for the majority of its citizens. It's an extremely rich country that doesn't share its wealth with its people, but only with a few regime leaders and a small circle of incompetent friends, with no merit other than submitting to the Head of State. Much like all dictatorships, the majority of the population lives in miserable conditions, and anyone who denies this is a liar. There is no freedom everywhere, and where there isn't even a modicum of democracy, life is even worse than in Western countries, Europe, and the United States. The West isn't perfect, but it's still better than any dictatorship, and the facts prove it. How many citizens tried to flee Venezuela? Many, and for reasons that many, out of personal interest, pretend not to know.
There have been many political crimes, opponents killed, imprisoned, and human rights denied, even elections lost, rerun, and then won, certainly not in a fair and legal manner.
We are talking about a dictatorship that we, and anyone who joins us, certainly need to eradicate, anywhere in the world, but we would have preferred it to be done by the respective people, and without external intervention.
The United States has found reasons, perhaps plausible and real, but not sufficient for such military action. History, however, is full of more or less convincing motivations, provocations, and often, unfortunately, falsehoods, to justify military attacks and acts of violence, often with tragic consequences in terms of human lives lost, injuries, fear, destruction, and spirals of violence and hatred that are difficult to remedy.
However, anyone who uses only certain parts and only certain facts, forgetting others, which are not useful for affirming their beliefs, for us is simply a loser, who politically, ethically, and morally, has no credibility, because he is not consistent, and does not see the facts from a 360-degree perspective.
Hypocrisy and the selective selection of history to prove oneself right only gain the support of a few ignorant, resentful, frustrated, envious, and incompetent people. But this isn't our problem, because for us, consistency is important, as is the dissemination of the truth, comprehensively, from reliable, and continually verified sources—and we have no masters!
History teaches us that the principles of independence, neutrality, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are fundamental pillars of international law, enshrined primarily in the United Nations Charter (Article 2), and are integrated with the principle of self-determination of peoples (Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter) in a hierarchical and complementary manner, prioritizing the stability of States and respect for international treaties. Fundamental Principles and Their Interrelationship Sovereignty and Independence: Every State is sovereign and independent, with equal sovereignty (Article 2(1) UN Charter). Independence implies that States freely decide their own internal and external affairs without interference.
Territorial integrity: States must refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other States (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). This principle protects existing borders and is considered customary.
Neutrality: In the context of international law, it often refers to the permanent or armed neutrality of certain states (e.g. Switzerland), but in a general sense it implies impartiality and non-interference in the affairs of others, compatible with sovereignty.
Self-determination of peoples: It is the right of peoples to freely determine their political, economic, social and cultural status (art. 1(2) UN Charter; art. 1 of the 1966 Covenants on Civil/Political and Economic/Social/Cultural Rights).
Complementing and balancing self-determination. International law sees no contradiction between these principles: territorial integrity generally prevails over external self-determination (which can lead to secession and independence), except in specific cases. Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970, UN Resolution 2625): This key document affirms that self-determination can be achieved through independence, free association, integration, or another freely chosen political status. However, it includes a "safeguard clause": nothing authorizes actions that dismember or compromise the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states that respect self-determination (representative government without discrimination).
Colonial context: Self-determination fully prevailed in decolonization (Resolution 1514/1960), leading to the independence of colonial territories without violating territorial integrity (since colonial territories had separate status).
Outside of decolonization: Self-determination is primarily internal (autonomy, democratic participation, minor rights). Unilateral secession is not a general right, to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity. International law is neutral on unilateral secession in democratic states: it does not explicitly prohibit it, but does not authorize it, leaving the issue to domestic law and political negotiation (e.g., Quebec in Canada, Scotland in the United Kingdom).
International Court of Justice (ICJ) Opinion on Kosovo (2010): The unilateral declaration of independence did not violate general international law, since the principle of territorial integrity applies in relations between states, not necessarily to domestic actors. However, the ICJ did not affirm a positive right to secession, nor did it create a general precedent.
Other cases: In contexts such as Catalonia or other secessionist movements, there is no consolidated recognition of "remedial secession" (except in cases of serious systematic violations, a theory not universally accepted).
Compliance with international laws and treaties (e.g., the 1966 Covenants, the Vienna Convention on Treaties) and customary law require that self-determination not lead to violations of force or external interference.
International stability prevails: unilateral fragmentations could undermine peace (as underlined in the Helsinki Final Act 1975).
In short, these principles complement each other by prioritizing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states, limiting external self-determination to exceptional circumstances (decolonization, serious foreign occupation). Neutrality strengthens non-intervention, while independence is protected from external threats. Any claims must comply with treaties and the UN Charter, favoring negotiated and democratic internal solutions rather than unilateral secessions.
But why do we talk about these things?
To demonstrate that despite an apparent international rule, double standards are often applied, based on the law of the strongest, based on the interests of lobbies, and international actors, which are not always visible. The old systems allow all of this, DirectDemocracyS will clarify at the right time what the best solution is, for the good of all humanity, without preferences.
Integrating these principles represents one of the most complex challenges in modern international law. In the traditional system (Option A), these concepts often conflict, leading to war and instability. At DirectDemocracyS, we address this challenge through the logic of prevention and collective ownership, offering a paradigm in which these pillars are not exclusive, but mutually reinforcing . Here's how we integrate these principles into our system: 1. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity vs. Self-Determination. International law (the UN Charter) recognizes both, but self-determination is often used as a pretext to violate territorial integrity, or vice versa. The DDS Solution: We shift sovereignty from the abstract state to the concrete people. If sovereignty belongs to citizens (via micro-groups and platforms), geographical borders become less critical because laws are decided from below. Respect for Treaties: DDS always operates in compliance with international law. Every process of self-determination must take place through certified, open, and verified digital voting, avoiding external coups or manipulation. Territorial integrity is protected by the stability that only real and continuous consensus (not a delegation every five years) can guarantee. 2. Independence and Neutrality: These principles are often jeopardized by lobbies and foreign powers that finance traditional politics. Self-financing: As we have rightly pointed out, our independence comes from the fact that we do not accept money from lobbies. We are "private" in order to be free. Active Neutrality: DDS's neutrality is not indifference, but independence from geopolitical blocs. Our decisions are based on data from Specialist Groups, not on military or economic alliances. Being present in every country, our "foreign policy" is actually a "global domestic policy" based on the common good. 3. Integration of Principles through Micro-Groups: Territorial integrity is best defended when every square kilometer is guarded by informed and organized citizens. Local Control: With the creation of 10 million micro-groups, each territory has a DirectDemocracyS cell that monitors compliance with the law and the integrity of the area. Conflict Prevention: If a population feels the need for self-determination, our system offers a platform for informed discussion, genuine, peaceful, and mutually respectful negotiation, and transparent voting. This prevents violence by integrating the desire for freedom with respect for international norms. DirectDemocracyS Summary Principle Integration Method Independence Guaranteed by self-financing and the use of its own platforms. Neutrality Ensured by decisions based on scientific and expert data, not ideologies. Sovereignty Restored to citizens through direct and continuous voting. Integrity Protected by social stability and the widespread control of micro-groups. Self-determination Managed through direct, legal, and transparent democratic processes. Towards a New International Order We do not want to destroy the State, but to make it efficient and honest. We respect the Laws because they are the basis of coexistence, but we work to improve them so that they are no longer instruments of power for the few, but guarantees of freedom for all.
a. To accept full responsibility for the comment that you submit.
b. To use this function only for lawful purposes.
c. Not to post defamatory, abusive, offensive, racist, sexist, threatening, vulgar, obscene, hateful or otherwise inappropriate comments, or to post comments which will constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability.
d. Not to post or make available any material which is protected by copyright, trade mark or other proprietary right without the express permission of the owner of the copyright, trade mark or any other proprietary right.
e. To evaluate for yourself the accuracy of any opinion, advice or other content.