This introduction was AI-generated from my original Japanese manuscript.
It was not something many expected: the United States risking being perceived as a second Russia by infringing on another nation’s sovereignty, while offering little in the way of a clearly articulated rationale to the international community. President Trump has publicly stated, both domestically and internationally, that the United States will “manage” Venezuela for the time being.
If we compare state governance to computer systems, a constitution functions much like an operating system. In that sense, the U.S. constitutional “OS” does not appear to contain an explicit rule prohibiting the infringement of foreign sovereignty. There is also historical precedent—most notably the case of General Manuel Noriega, who was tried in the United States and initially sentenced to 40 years (later reduced to 17)—which reinforces the perception that, as long as due process under domestic law is followed, such actions are institutionally acceptable.
That said, the practice of detaining a foreign head of state and subjecting them to domestic judicial proceedings carries significant external risks. It may provoke states with elevated threat perceptions, such as Iran, and inadvertently provide incentives for more radical or destabilizing responses. Moreover, this development could potentially undermine the normative foundations on which NATO has justified its defense of Ukraine.
While establishment figures are likely to remain publicly silent, it is reasonable to assume that many are fully aware of the implications of what has occurred.
In consumer PC and appliance design, it is considered essential to anticipate how users might misuse or push systems beyond their intended boundaries. Democracy, in this sense, resembles a “home-use” system: it is inherently unpredictable who will ultimately hold power. Observing the current U.S. case, one is left to wonder whether the original system designers fully anticipated scenarios of this magnitude.
コメントを残す