🔗 Share this article

It comes as shocked to see the current US president, after previously supported Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip, now appears prepared to ignore international law through his threatening stance toward Venezuela and deadly attacks on alleged narcotics vessels. Reflecting the fears voiced by demonstrators throughout America, the president acts like he is above legal accountability. The only method to restrain this kind of illegal conduct would be to expose the harmful consequences for the president's supporters.

Military Movements and Provocative Actions

In spite of his administration's pledge against starting protracted conflicts, the president reportedly sent a warship into the Caribbean Sea and has been deploying military aircraft close to the Venezuelan coast. While US officials rejects that their objective is ousting the government, several officials confidentially concede this appears to be the aim. Removing Venezuela's authoritarian president, the Venezuelan head of state, has long been a priority of the US Secretary of State, America's chief foreign affairs officer.

Regardless of whether the president's threats are hollow words or a prelude for military action, these actions remain illegal. Nor, does such aggressive posturing create justification for Trump's illegal attacks – which some label murder – of alleged drug traffickers originating in Venezuela.

International Charter Breaches

According to the United Nations Charter, a document that applies to all nations, it contains a prohibition on threatening or using military force against other nations except if authorized by the UN's top body or used for defensive purposes in response to “an armed attack”. Given the veto power within the council, it is impossible for it to authorize the US to invade Venezuela. Nor, could the administration interpret such an action to be defensive because Venezuela did not initiated an “armed attack” on the United States.

Humanitarian Intervention Principle

What about the concept of humanitarian intervention, the principle that without requiring Security Council authorization, military force could be employed to halt widespread crimes? The author once subscribed to that approach, frequently known as R2P. Human Rights Watch, where I long led, has sought such measures previously. However, the abuse of the doctrine as a pretext for regime change during the Iraq war and the Libyan conflict has effectively rendered R2P irrelevant. Both nations ended up in disarray, an outcome frequently worse than authoritarian rule. Few reference this principle today.

Crucially, even its peak popularity, such action could only be justified as an ultimate measure to stop current or imminent mass killing or comparable atrocities. The reason is that only large-scale killing warrants the risks involved in any use of military force, including for assertedly humanitarian motives.

Maduro's Record

The Venezuelan president is certainly an oppressive leader. His government has crushed dissent to his authoritarian regime, rigged an election, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country through his mismanagement, and forced nearly 8 million citizens – over twenty percent of the population – to leave their homeland. However, military action for humanitarian purposes can never be legitimized only for removing a dictator, without genocidal violence.

Contrasting Approaches to Global Crises

Trump's fixation with Venezuela notably differs from his comparative indifference regarding far more deadly wars in Darfur, Sudan as well as in the east of the DRC. There, the US has done no action to stop a US ally, from arming the rebel Rapid Support Forces while they starve and bomb civilians. In the DRC, the administration oversaw a ceasefire deal, which has mostly remained ignored, and blessed Rwandan abusive invasion, via Rwandan forces and allied militias called the M23, while enabling Rwanda to exploit the region's natural resources.

Peace Prize Laureate and International Law

The illegality of the US threats to Venezuela does not change because María Corina Machado, this year's Peace Prize winner, has virtually encouraged Trump to invade. Similar to Myanmar's prize winner Suu Kyi, who defended the country's armed forces against genocide charges against the Rohingya in her quest to become president, Machado illustrates the Nobel committee's tendency to confuse an ambition to wrest power from military rulers and dedication to legal principles.

In short, if the US to invade Venezuela, that would constitute indefensible aggression, much as Russia's president did when he attacked Ukraine. The wish to rid Venezuelans of their leader's oppressive and corrupt governance does not justify armed intervention against Venezuela.

Legal Arguments for Narcotics Vessel Strikes

Additionally, does the administration's aggressive behavior save the lawfulness of his lethal attacks on suspected drug-running boats. The Trump administration has refused to release a confidential legal opinion that purports to authorize these attacks, but authorities have referenced arguments which are comparable to those used for the threats of invading Venezuela.

According to global legal standards, law enforcement operations must avoid deadly violence except as a last resort to address an imminent threat of death and grave physical harm. Historically, the majority of alleged narcotics vessels have been intercepted and their occupants put on trial. Yet Trump wants us to think that individuals in the boats may now be executed without trial on the grounds that they have become in an “armed conflict” against the United States and therefore may be targeted like any combatant in a war.

However, there is no armed conflict involving narcotics organizations. They are operating illegal enterprises, one often advanced by violent means, to be sure, but that violence is not directed against the United States. There is nothing reaching the level of military engagement against America necessary to apply the rules for warfare to be applicable.

In the event Trump decided to attack Venezuela, the hostilities between the nations would indeed represent