How legal was the US's action in Venezuela? | DW News

Venezuela: US Military Intervention & Implications

Key Concepts:

• Decapitation Strike: A military operation aimed at removing key leadership figures.
• Maximum Pressure Campaign: A strategy of applying intense economic and political pressure on a target nation.
• Hemispheric Control: The US policy of asserting dominance over the Americas.
• Narco-State: A state where drug trafficking significantly influences political and economic institutions.
• Regime Change: The overthrow of a government by external forces.
• UN Charter: The foundational treaty of the United Nations, outlining principles of international law.
• MAGA (Make America Great Again): The political movement associated with Donald Trump, encompassing various ideologies including nationalism and populism.
• Strategic Ambiguity: A deliberate policy of not clearly stating how one would respond to a specific situation.
• Strategic Uncertainty: A situation where the intentions or actions of a state are unclear, leading to unpredictable outcomes.

I. Legality of the US Military Action

The US military operation seizing Nicolás Maduro in Caracas is widely considered a violation of international law, specifically the UN Charter. Mariano Agirst of Chattam House and the German Friedri Ebert Foundation, asserts that the Charter prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of other states and the use of military force for such interference. He identifies two exceptions – a threat to international peace or an imminent attack against the US – neither of which apply to the situation in Venezuela.

The US attempted to justify the action by claiming Maduro leads a cartel and that Venezuela is a “narco-state” exporting fentanyl to the US. However, Agirst refutes this, noting fentanyl primarily enters the US through the Pacific Ocean and Mexico, not directly from Venezuela. He emphasizes there is no proof of the alleged cartel’s existence.

II. Geopolitical Signals & Trump’s Worldview

Donald Trump’s action signals a “big power competition” worldview, where the US, China, and Russia are seen as vying for global influence. Agirst explains Trump envisions a US-dominated “hemispheric” sphere of influence, extending from Greenland to Patagonia. This strategy, outlined in the new US National Security Strategy, prioritizes control of resources, securing allies (particularly far-right governments), controlling sea lanes, and deterring migration.

This approach is not without its challenges, as Agirst points out the complex realities of Latin America and the potential for resistance from various actors. Trump’s stated intention to “run Venezuela” is viewed as unrealistic given his reluctance to commit US troops.

III. Potential Expansion of US Intervention

The possibility of further interventions is raised, with Marco Rubio hinting at Cuba and previous discussions regarding Greenland. Agirst suggests a “domino theory” is at play in Rubio’s thinking, with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua potentially targeted. He cautions that intervening based solely on authoritarian governance would lead to global conflict.

The ideological dimension of the “MAGA” movement is highlighted, with its aim to expand its influence – a right-wing, Christian, authoritarian, and anti-democratic ideology – to Latin America and Europe.

IV. Contradictions with Trump’s Rhetoric

The intervention appears contradictory to Trump’s previous rhetoric, both regarding his “America First” doctrine and his self-proclaimed role as a “peacemaker.” Agirst points out the tension between the MAGA movement’s expansionist goals and the reality of complex geopolitical dynamics.

V. Military Assessment & Next Steps

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery describes the operation as a “decapitation strike” culminating a “maximum pressure campaign.” He notes the Venezuelan military likely observed US military buildup and understood the disparity in force, leading to minimal resistance. The aggressive strike on Venezuelan air defense and intelligence centers served as a warning against future opposition.

Montgomery argues Trump’s initial reluctance towards regime change has been superseded by the situation on the ground. He believes the US must focus on removing Maduro’s key allies – the Vice President, Minister of Defense, and Minister of Interior Justice – to facilitate a transition to a democratically elected government. He stresses the importance of convincing these figures to leave peacefully to avoid further conflict.

VI. Lessons from Past Interventions & International Criticism

Montgomery draws parallels to past US interventions in Panama, Haiti, and Grenada, acknowledging their limited success. He highlights the lack of established relationships with the Venezuelan military, a crucial factor missing compared to other South American countries.

The intervention has drawn criticism from European leaders, who deem it illegal. Montgomery acknowledges some inappropriate military activity during the pressure campaign (striking drug ships without proper law enforcement) but defends the legality of the operation under US law, citing Trump’s declaration of Maduro’s regime as a foreign terrorist organization and a national security threat.

VII. Implications for China & Russia

The intervention sends a mixed message to China and Russia. While it could be interpreted as justification for their own unilateral actions (e.g., against Taiwan or Ukraine), Montgomery suggests it may also create “strategic uncertainty” that could deter China, particularly given Trump’s unpredictable behavior. He believes Russia, already engaged in Ukraine, is less affected by the situation.

VIII. Key Quotes

• Mariano Agirst: “By international law and particularly under the UN charter…states should refrain not to interfere in the domestic issues of other states and…refrain particularly not to use military force.”
• Donald Trump (as reported): “I warn you other cronies, leave now or face the same kind of punishment.”
• Mark Montgomery: “The idea of running the country for some period of time is not realistic given, you know, his desire to not put US boots on the ground.”

Conclusion:

The US military intervention in Venezuela represents a significant escalation of tensions and a departure from established norms of international law. While the immediate goal was to remove Maduro from power, the long-term implications are uncertain. The success of the intervention hinges on securing the cooperation of key Venezuelan figures, establishing a stable transition to a democratic government, and navigating the complex geopolitical landscape, particularly in relation to China and Russia. The operation’s legality and the contradictions with Trump’s previous rhetoric raise serious questions about the future of US foreign policy and its commitment to international norms.