We should not be astonished to see the current US president, who previously endorsed Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, now seems prepared to disregard legal norms with the administration's bellicose stance regarding Venezuela alongside lethal strikes on alleged narcotics boats. Demonstrating those concerns expressed by protesters across America, Trump acts like he is immune from legal accountability. The only method to restrain such criminality would be to reveal the harmful implications for his followers.
Military Deployments along with Provocative Measures
Despite the White House's pledge to avoid starting protracted conflicts, Trump has dispatched a warship to the Caribbean Sea while is sending armed helicopters close to the Venezuelan coast. Although the Trump administration rejects that its objective is regime change, several authorities privately concede this seems is their intention. Ousting Venezuela's authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, has long been an objective for the US Secretary of State, the top diplomat.
Whether Trump's provocations represent empty words and a prelude to an invasion, these actions remain illegal. Furthermore, does such aggressive posturing create legal grounds for the administration's unlawful attacks – which some label murder – of suspected drug traffickers from Venezuela.
International Law Violations
The United Nations Charter, a document that applies to every country, it contains a ban against “the threat or use of force” against other nations except if approved by the UN's top body and used in “self-defense” against “an armed attack”. Given the veto power on the Security Council, it is impossible that it to approve Trump to invade Venezuela. Additionally, could the administration argue an invasion as defensive since Venezuela did not initiated an “armed attack” against US territory.
Humanitarian Intervention Principle
But then there is the idea of humanitarian intervention, the notion stating without requiring Security Council authorization, military force could be used to halt widespread crimes? The author once subscribed to this doctrine, often called R2P. Human Rights Watch, which I long led, on several occasions sought humanitarian intervention in the past. But, the abuse of this principle as a pretext for overthrowing governments during the Iraq war and the Libyan conflict has in practice made R2P a dead letter. Both countries were left in chaos, an outcome frequently worse than tyranny. Not many invoke R2P anymore.
More importantly, during its peak popularity, humanitarian intervention could be justified as a last resort to stop current or impending mass killing or similar systematic murder. The reason is that just large-scale slaughter warrants the risks involved in every armed engagement, including when supposedly humanitarian reasons.
The Venezuelan Leader's Actions
The Venezuelan president is certainly a terrible ruler. He has crushed opposition against his authoritarian regime, stolen an election, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country with his mismanagement, and forced almost 8 million citizens – over 20% of Venezuelans – to leave their homeland. However, military action for humanitarian purposes cannot be legitimized merely for removing a dictator, without mass slaughter.
Divergent Policies to Global Crises
The president's fixation with Venezuela strikingly contrasts with his relative indifference toward far more deadly armed conflicts in Darfur, Sudan as well as in the east of the DRC. In Darfur, the US has done no action to prevent a US ally, from supplying weapons to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces while they starve and bomb innocent people. In the DRC, the administration oversaw a truce agreement, which has largely remained violated, that approved Rwanda's aggressive invasion, through Rwandan forces and allied militias called the M23, while enabling them to profit from the region's natural resources.
Peace Prize Winner versus Global Norms
The illegality of the US actions against Venezuela remains unchanged despite the fact that the Venezuelan opposition leader, this year's Peace Prize laureate, has virtually invited the US to invade. Similar to the Burmese prize winner Suu Kyi, and who defended the Myanmar military from genocide charges targeting Rohingya Muslims in her quest to become president, the opposition figure illustrates the prize committee's inclination to mix up an ambition to seize control from military rulers with a commitment to legal principles.
To summarize, if the US were to attack Venezuela, that would constitute indefensible military aggression, similar to Vladimir Putin committed by invading Ukraine. The desire to rid Venezuelans of their leader's oppressive and corrupt governance does not justify the use of military force against Venezuela.
Juridical Rationales Regarding Narcotics Vessel Attacks
Nor, does Trump's aggressive conduct save the lawfulness of their lethal attacks against suspected narcotics-smuggling boats. US officials have refused to make public the internal legal memo which claims to justify these strikes, however officials have referenced arguments that are comparable to those applied to the threats of invading Venezuela.
According to international law, law enforcement operations are required to refrain from the use of lethal force except as a last resort to address an immediate danger of death and grave physical harm. Historically, most alleged narcotics vessels were intercepted with their crews prosecuted. But the president wants the public to believe that the people on these vessels can now be executed without trial because they have become in an “armed conflict” with the US and therefore may be targeted as any combatant during hostilities.
But, there is no armed conflict with narcotics organizations. These groups are running an illicit business, one often advanced by violent means, admittedly, but such force is not aimed against US interests. There is no situation approaching the level of armed hostilities with the United States necessary for laws of armed conflict to take effect.
In the event Trump were to invade Venezuela, the fighting between two countries would certainly represent
