🔗 Share this article

One cannot be surprised to see Donald Trump, who earlier endorsed Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip, currently seems willing to ignore international law through his threatening approach regarding Venezuela alongside lethal strikes against suspected narcotics boats. Reflecting the fears expressed among demonstrators across the United States, the president operates like he were immune from the law. The only method to restrain such illegal conduct is to reveal the dangerous implications to the president's followers.

Armed Deployments and Provocative Measures

In spite of the White House's commitment against starting protracted conflicts, the president reportedly sent an aircraft carrier into the Caribbean Sea while has been deploying armed helicopters close to the Venezuelan coast. While the Trump administration denies that its objective is regime change, several officials confidentially admit that appears to be the intention. Ousting the nation's authoritarian leader, the Venezuelan head of state, has for years been an objective for Marco Rubio, the top diplomat.

Regardless of whether the president's threats are empty rhetoric or preparation for military action, they are unlawful. Nor, can such aggressive posturing provide justification for Trump's illegal attacks – which some label extrajudicial killing – targeting suspected narcotics smugglers from Venezuela.

International Charter Violations

The UN Charter, which applies to all nations, there is a ban against threatening or using military force toward other nations except if authorized by the UN's top body or used for defensive purposes against military aggression. Given the veto power on the council, there is impossible for it to approve the US to invade Venezuela. Additionally, could Trump interpret an invasion as “self-defense” since Venezuela has not initiated military strikes on the United States.

Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

What about the idea of military action for humanitarian purposes, the principle that even without Security Council authorization, military force could be employed to stop widespread crimes? I previously subscribed to that approach, frequently known as R2P. The rights organization, which the author formerly served, has sought such measures previously. However, the abuse of the doctrine as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and the Libyan conflict has in practice made the doctrine irrelevant. Both nations were left in chaos, an outcome often worse than tyranny. Few reference R2P anymore.

More importantly, during in its heyday, humanitarian intervention could be justified only as an ultimate measure to prevent current or impending genocide and similar atrocities. This is because just large-scale slaughter can justify the dangers inherent in any use of military force, even for supposedly humanitarian reasons.

Maduro's Record

The Venezuelan president is indeed an oppressive leader. He has crushed dissent against his autocratic rule, stolen an election, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country with his incompetence, and driven nearly 8 million citizens – more than 20% of the population – to flee the country. But, humanitarian intervention cannot be justified merely to overthrow a despot, without mass slaughter.

Divergent Approaches International Crises

The president's fixation on Venezuela notably contrasts from their relative indifference toward much more lethal armed conflicts in Darfur, Sudan as well as in eastern the DRC. There, Trump has taken nothing to stop the United Arab Emirates, from arming the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces as they deprive and attack civilians. In the DRC, the administration brokered a ceasefire deal, which has mostly remained ignored, and blessed Rwandan aggressive incursion, through Rwandan forces and allied militias called M23 rebels, and enabling Rwanda to exploit the region's valuable minerals.

Nobel Prize Winner and Global Law

The unlawful nature of the US actions to Venezuela remains unchanged because María Corina Machado, this year's Peace Prize laureate, has virtually encouraged the US to invade. Similar to the Burmese prize winner Suu Kyi, and who defended the Myanmar military from genocide charges targeting the Rohingya in her quest to gain power, the opposition figure demonstrates the prize committee's tendency to confuse an ambition to seize control from military rulers with a commitment to the rule of law.

To summarize, if the US to invade Venezuela, it would be unjustifiable aggression, similar to Russia's president committed when he attacked Ukraine. The wish to rid the Venezuelan people from their leader's oppressive and corrupt governance cannot legitimize armed intervention to invade Venezuela.

Legal Arguments Regarding Drug Boat Attacks

Nor, can the administration's bellicose conduct save the lawfulness of his deadly attacks on alleged narcotics-smuggling vessels. US officials have declined to release the internal legal memo which claims to authorize these attacks, however authorities have referenced rationales which are similar to those applied to the warnings of invading Venezuela.

According to international law, law enforcement operations are required to refrain from deadly violence except as a last resort to meet an imminent threat of death and grave physical harm. In the past, the majority of suspected narcotics vessels were intercepted and their occupants put on trial. But the president wants us to think that individuals in the boats can now be executed without trial because they have become participants in a war with the United States and therefore can be killed like any combatant during hostilities.

However, exists no war involving narcotics organizations. They are running an illicit business, one often advanced through brutality, to be sure, yet such force is not directed at US interests. There is no situation reaching the threshold of armed hostilities with America required to apply laws of armed conflict to take effect.

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