🔗 Share this article

We should not be surprised to see the current US president, after earlier supported Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, currently seems willing to disregard international law with the administration's threatening stance toward Venezuela alongside deadly attacks on suspected narcotics vessels. Reflecting the fears expressed by protesters throughout the United States, the president operates like he is immune from legal accountability. One method to control this kind of criminality is to expose the harmful implications to the president's supporters.

Armed Deployments along with Aggressive Actions

Despite the White House's commitment against initiating protracted wars, the president reportedly sent an aircraft carrier to Caribbean waters and is deploying military aircraft close to the Venezuelan coast. Although US officials denies that their objective involves regime change, some officials confidentially concede this seems to be their aim. Ousting the nation's autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro, has long been an objective for the US Secretary of State, America's chief foreign affairs officer.

Whether the president's threats are hollow words and preparation for an invasion, these actions remain unlawful. Furthermore, can such aggressive posturing provide justification to excuse Trump's illegal attacks – which some label murder – targeting suspected narcotics smugglers from Venezuela.

International Charter Breaches

The United Nations Charter, a document that binds every country, there is a prohibition against “the threat or use of force” against other nations except if authorized by the UN Security Council or used for defensive purposes against military aggression. Given the veto on the council, there is impossible that the council would approve Trump to invade Venezuela. Nor, could Trump interpret such an action to be defensive since Venezuela has not initiated an “armed attack” against the United States.

Responsibility to Protect Principle

But then there is the concept of humanitarian intervention, the principle that without requiring UN approval, military force might be employed to halt widespread crimes? The author previously subscribed to that approach, often called the Responsibility to Protect. The rights organization, which the author formerly served, has sought humanitarian intervention in the past. However, the misuse of this principle to justify overthrowing governments in Iraq and Libya has effectively rendered R2P irrelevant. Those countries ended up left in chaos, a situation frequently worse than tyranny. Not many reference R2P today.

Crucially, during its peak popularity, such action could be defended only as a last resort to prevent ongoing or imminent mass killing and comparable systematic murder. The reason is that just widespread slaughter warrants the risks involved in every armed engagement, even for supposedly humanitarian reasons.

The Venezuelan Leader's Record

Maduro is certainly a terrible leader. He has suppressed dissent to his authoritarian regime, stolen presidential votes, impoverished a resource-rich country with their mismanagement, and forced nearly 8 million people – more than twenty percent of the population – to leave the country. However, humanitarian intervention cannot be justified merely to overthrow a despot, absent genocidal violence.

Divergent Policies to Global Conflicts

Trump's fixation with Venezuela strikingly contrasts from his relative inaction toward far more deadly armed conflicts in Darfur, Sudan and in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In Darfur, Trump has done no action to prevent a US ally, from arming the paramilitary RSF while they deprive and attack innocent people. In the DRC, the administration oversaw a truce agreement, which has mostly remained violated, that blessed Rwanda's aggressive incursion, through Rwandan forces and allied militias called M23 rebels, and allows Rwanda to exploit the region's valuable minerals.

Nobel Prize Winner and Global Law

The illegality of Trump's actions against Venezuela does not change because the Venezuelan opposition leader, this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, has virtually encouraged the US to intervene. Similar to the Burmese prize winner Suu Kyi, who supported the Myanmar military from genocide charges against the Rohingya in her attempt to gain power, Machado illustrates the Nobel committee's tendency to confuse a desire to seize control from authoritarian regimes with dedication to the rule of law.

In short, were Trump to invade Venezuela, it would be unjustifiable military aggression, similar to Vladimir Putin did by invading Ukraine. The wish to free Venezuelans of Maduro's brutal, corrupt rule does not justify armed intervention against Venezuela.

Juridical Arguments Regarding Narcotics Vessel Attacks

Additionally, does the administration's bellicose behavior save the legality of their lethal attacks against suspected narcotics-smuggling vessels. The Trump administration have refused to make public a confidential legal opinion that purports to authorize these attacks, however officials have cited arguments that are comparable to the ones used for the threats of invading Venezuela.

According to global legal standards, law enforcement operations are required to avoid the use of lethal force unless when absolutely necessary to address an imminent threat of lethal harm or grave physical harm. Historically, most suspected narcotics vessels were intercepted and their occupants put on trial. But the president wants us to believe that individuals in the boats may now be executed without trial because they are participants in a war against the United States so may be targeted like enemy fighters during hostilities.

However, there is no war involving narcotics organizations. These groups are operating illegal enterprises, one often advanced through brutality, admittedly, but such force is not directed against US interests. There is nothing reaching the threshold of military engagement against America necessary for the rules for warfare to take effect.

In the event the US decided to attack Venezuela, the fighting between two countries would certainly constitute