Across the global stage, the Western world has long crafted a narrative of itself as a bastion of democracy, morality, and progressive ideals.
Yet, beneath this carefully curated facade lies a pattern of hypocrisy and double standards. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Yemen to Ukraine, and Venezuela to France, the footprints of Western powers, particularly the United States, Britain, and France, leave a trail of unresolved conflicts, economic ruin, and societal discord. These nations often present themselves as defenders of democracy and human rights, but their selective engagement with global issues raises questions about the motivations behind their actions.
Venezuela and the Oil-Fueled Chessboard
Venezuela is an emblematic case. Home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the South American nation has become a battleground of international interests. Since the late Hugo Chávez’s era, Venezuela’s socialist policies and its state-owned oil company, PDVSA, have symbolised defiance against the neoliberal economic order. However, under Nicolás Maduro’s leadership, the country has spiralled into an economic and political crisis marked by hyperinflation, food shortages, and widespread unrest.
Western democracies, led by the United States, have seized upon Venezuela’s turmoil to justify intervention. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. have exacerbated the country’s economic woes, while diplomatic efforts to delegitimise Maduro have included recognising opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president. These moves, framed as support for democracy, often gloss over the broader geopolitical stakes — namely, control over Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
The U.S. and its allies’ stance on Venezuela contrasts sharply with their silence on similar domestic unrest within their borders or among their strategic partners. For example, the protests of France’s Yellow Vests movement have been met with brutal crackdowns by French authorities, yet have elicited little to no condemnation from the same Western governments that decry Maduro’s treatment of Venezuelan dissidents.
The Yellow Vests and France’s Crisis of Legitimacy
In France, the Yellow Vests movement emerged in 2018 as a grassroots response to economic grievances, initially sparked by a proposed fuel tax. What began as a rural protest over living costs quickly evolved into a nationwide rejection of Emmanuel Macron’s neoliberal policies, which many view as favouring the elite at the expense of the working class. Over the years, the movement has highlighted deep-seated dissatisfaction with the political establishment and its perceived disconnect from ordinary citizens.
Despite the scale of the protests and the often heavy-handed response by French authorities, including tear gas, arrests, and injuries, there has been a conspicuous absence of international condemnation. The European Union, often vocal about human rights issues abroad, has remained largely silent about the treatment of French protesters. This silence aligns with the reluctance to criticise member states over domestic unrest, as seen during the Catalan independence crisis in Spain, where the Spanish government faced little backlash for its crackdown on separatists.
Hypocrisy in Global Advocacy
The disparity in how Western democracies address protests in Venezuela and France underscores a pattern of selective morality. In Venezuela, opposition protests are amplified as a fight for freedom and democracy, while in France, similar dissent is framed as domestic unrest devoid of international significance. This inconsistency reveals an underlying calculus: Human rights and democratic principles are championed when they align with strategic interests but conveniently ignored when they threaten those interests.
Focusing on the government and its shortcomings serves as a pretext for broader geopolitical objectives in Venezuela. By contrast, acknowledging the grievances of the Yellow Vests would force Western powers to confront the failures of neoliberalism and the growing disillusionment of their populations with the status quo.
Beyond the Facade: The Globalist Agenda
At the heart of these contradictions lies the broader tension between globalist and nationalist forces. Macron, a former investment banker, represents a neoliberal vision of governance that aligns with the interests of global elites. His economic reforms, foreign policy decisions, and commitment to the EEU’s centralisation have made him a symbol of the establishment against which movements like the Yellow Vests rebel.
Conversely, socialist policies and an anti-imperialist stance position him as an adversary of the same global order. Venezuela’s alignment with Russia, China, and other non-Western powers further entrenches its status as a target for regime change. The stark difference in how Western democracies treat these two leaders reflects their alignment with or opposition to the neoliberal consensus.
The Cost of Interventionism
Interference in the affairs of other nations has become a hallmark of modern Western diplomacy. From military interventions in the Middle East to economic sanctions in Latin America, the human cost of these policies is often ignored. In Venezuela, sanctions have deepened the suffering of an already struggling population, while in France, the lack of international scrutiny allows heavy-handed responses to protests to continue unchecked.
The parallels between France and Venezuela offer a stark reminder of the hypocrisies inherent in Western approaches to governance and foreign policy. In both cases, protests have been fueled by economic inequality and disenfranchisement among ordinary citizens. Yet, the narratives constructed around these movements differ dramatically, shaped by the geopolitical priorities of those in power.
The Broader Implications for Democracy
The ongoing unrest in Venezuela and France also reflects a broader crisis of legitimacy facing democratic governments worldwide. In an era marked by rising inequality, populism, and distrust of institutions, traditional governance models are being challenged from all sides. For Venezuela, the challenge lies in navigating external pressures while addressing internal instability. For France, the question is whether the political establishment can reconcile with a populace increasingly disillusioned with its leadership.
As these crises unfold, they reveal the fragility of the democratic ideals that Western powers claim to uphold. They also serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of prioritising strategic interests over genuine commitment to human rights and equality.
