 |
| (Attribution: Times of India) |
Call it gunboat
diplomacy. Call it imperialism. Call it bullying a weaker country within our “sphere
of influence.” All are accurate descriptions of what occurred on January 3,
2026, when U.S. military forces attacked Venezuela in Caracas, bombed buildings
(including at least one apartment building), killed dozens of Venezuelan
security forces and civilians, and seized Nicolas Maduro and his wife, who were
flown to the United States to face alleged drug trafficking charges.
Many Venezuelans are
understandably happy to see Maduro removed. He was a thug, a corrupt despot who
ruled through repression, and a man who, along with Hugo Chavez before him, destroyed
the Venezuelan economy and caused nearly one-fourth of the country’s citizens to
flee their homeland. But the ends do not justify the means.
First, the attack on Venezuela violated
international law. It was an illegal and unilateral military action against a
nation with which we were not at war, and which had not attacked us. We conducted
the attack without international consultation or support in violation of the rules-based
international order established by the United States and Europe after World War
II. The United Nations Charter, of which the United States was a key architect,
provides that no country may invade or attack another country unless authorized
by the U.N. Security Council or when acting in self-defense. This has been a
bedrock principle of international law for the past 80 years.
As Oona Hathaway, a professor at
Yale Law School and president-elect of the American Society of International
Law, told The New Yorker, “[if] a President can just decide that
a leader is not legitimate and then invade the country and presumably put
someone in power who is favored by the Administration … that’s the end of
international law, that’s the end of the U.N. charter, that’s the end of any
kind of legal limits on the use of force.”
Although the Trump administration
has suggested that the United States must defend itself against drug smugglers,
any claim of self-defense is ludicrous. As the former national director of the
ACLU and Columbia law professor David Cole explained in The New York Review of Books, “self-defense applies only in response to an actual or
imminent armed attack, and whatever else drug smuggling might be, it is not
even conceivably an armed attack.” Venezuela was not at war with the United
States and, whatever the evidence may show with respect to Maduro’s complicity
in smuggling cocaine (which in the case of Venezuela is mostly destined for
Europe), neither Maduro nor the alleged drug smugglers ever engaged in armed
attacks against the United States. As Cole rightly notes, “The only nation with
a self-defense justification here is Venezuela.”
Second, the U.S. military action violated
U.S. law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly reserves to Congress the right to
declare war or authorize military force, and the War Powers Act requires the
president to notify Congress before engaging U.S. troops in military action. Trump
boasted at the press conference following the attack that he neither sought
congressional approval nor consulted in advance with any members of Congress or
the intelligence committees (though he shockingly said the next day that he consulted with oil company executives in advance of the attack). Although this is not the
first time a U.S. president has ordered military action without full congressional
authorization, Trump’s actions here, taken without any congressional consultation,
were brazenly unconstitutional. These are the actions of an oligarchy, not a
democratic republic.
Nor was the attack on Venezuela, as
claimed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a “law enforcement operation” to
arrest Maduro and his wife on the pending drug charges. Invading a country to seize
and remove their leader is an act of war, not law enforcement. Imagine if the United
Kingdom charged Trump with a financial crime and then sent its special forces with
air cover to enter the White House, arrest Trump, and forcibly remove him from
the country. Would anyone consider that a “law enforcement operation”? In any
event, Trump demolished Rubio’s explanation when he stated that the United
States intended to “run the country” indefinitely “until such time as we can do
a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” That sounds to all the world like
regime change, not law enforcement.
Was our illegal military action at
least motivated by noble ideals, like restoring democracy to Venezuela? Unfortunately,
of the conflicting justifications provided by the administration for attacking Venezuela,
restoring democracy was not one of them. Trump dismissed outright any thought
of transitioning Venezuela’s presidency to the popular opposition leader, Nobel
Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who Trump falsely claimed did not
have the support of the country (her party won the 2024 election illegally
suppressed by Maduro). He instead chose to leave the remaining members of Maduro’s
regime in power if they are willing to “play ball” (in the words of Rubio) with
the administration.
Of course, what the
administration means by “play ball” is allowing the United States and its large
multinational corporations to reassert control of Venezuelan oil reserves,
which Trump contends the Venezuelan government “stole” from the United States
decades ago when Venezuela nationalized its oil industry. And, Trump exclaimed,
“we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so,” cementing
his overt imperialistic ambitions.
Thus, Trump’s goal in capturing
Maduro was entirely about “getting back” the oil, and he ordered U.S. military
action for the benefit of fossil fuel executives and an industry that donated heavily to Trump during past elections. By doing so, Trump falsely conflated
U.S. national interests with the private interests of a few select corporations,
whose primary objectives are to maximize profits for their wealthy shareholders.
Trump does not pretend that he
wants to make the world a better place, or improve our alliances, or protect
the stability of international law. He simply wants to assert his power, show how
tough and strong he is, and enrich U.S. billionaires and companies. He holds
our European alliances in disdain. He despises democracy and praises autocracy.
It is why he has always respected and admired people like Vladimir Putin,
Victor Orban, Mohammed bin Salman, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. He envies the
power wielded by dictators, rejects international law, and refuses to follow the
rules and diplomatic norms that might impede his ability to do whatever he wants.
As White House Deputy Chief of
Staff Stephen Miller told Jake Tapper on CNN on January 5, “We live in a world,
in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force,
that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world
since the beginning of time.” According to Miller (and Trump), international law
and treaties that protect the sovereignty and independence of the world’s recognized
nations are merely “international niceties” that mean nothing in the “real
world.” To Trump and Miller, the rule of law be damned. “The United States is using
its military to assert our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere,” said
Miller. “We’re a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct
ourselves as a superpower. … The future of the free world depends on America being
able to assert ourselves, our interests, without apology.”
I cannot imagine that any person of
intelligence takes Stephen Miller seriously, but he is a powerful
behind-the-scenes official in the Trump administration with a significant say
over U.S. policy. And Miller, like Trump, believes firmly in a world in which
the United States can overthrow governments with impunity and take control of another
nation’s resources so long as it advances what Trump subjectively believes is
in America’s national interest.
At the January 3 press
conference, Trump invoked the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which as modified by
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, proclaimed U.S. supremacy in the Western
Hemisphere and the right of the United States to militarily intervene into Latin American affairs to ensure stability and maintain regional dominance. In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt effectively replaced the Monroe
Doctrine with the Good Neighbor Policy, which stressed
non-intervention, mutual respect, and collaboration with Latin American nations
on hemispheric security. The United States in 1948 also co-founded the
Organization of American States, which emphasized shared security and respect
for sovereignty among the nations of North and South America. This approach was
consistent with the post-World War II system of international law designed to
prevent countries from disrespecting the sovereignty of their neighbors and unilaterally
solving conflicts through war.
Welcome to the Trump Doctrine,
which ignores international law and the post-war system of restraints and
alliances, and says to the world that we will do what we want, when we want,
and unless you are powerful enough to stop us, there is nothing you can do
about it. Or, to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, “F--- around and find out” – the FAFO doctrine.
If you think this is hyperbole,
think again. Shortly after attacking Venezuela, Trump warned Colombia’s
president to “watch his ass,” said “we’re going to have to do something in Mexico,”
and Cuba “is ready to fall.” Marco Rubio, who has long called for regime change
in Cuba, said, “If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I'd be
concerned - at least a little bit.” When asked by Jake Tapper to rule out U.S.
military force against Greenland, Stephen Miller responded, “Nobody’s going to
fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” Trump has
double- and triple-downed on these statements over the past few days.
Russia and China are paying close
attention. The idea that the world is a place that powerful countries can carve
up to suit their interests fits directly into their worldviews. Countries within their respective
spheres of influence, including Ukraine and Taiwan, are feeling especially uneasy
today. The United States will have little ground to stand on when our
adversaries inevitably flex their muscles to invade or dominate nearby, weaker
nations.
Trump does not read much, and he
knows almost nothing about history. But the world was a more dangerous and
bleaker place when strong countries were able to dominate and exploit weaker
countries at will. Following the bloodbath of World War I, the death of sixty
million people in World War II, and the advent of nuclear weapons, the nations
of the world finally agreed that we needed a rules-based international order to
lessen the likelihood of another world war and the possible destruction of the
planet. The United Nations and other institutions of international diplomacy
have not always succeeded in preventing wars and foreign conflicts, but they
have been crucial to preventing another catastrophic world war.
The one thing on which I agreed
with Trump all these years was his recognition that the U.S. war and subsequent
occupation of Iraq during the first decade of the 21st century was a complete
and utter disaster. Not having a plan for the day after, for Page Two of what
at first appears to be a successful military operation, automatically turns
success into failure. Trump offered no plan for Venezuela beyond our taking
over its oil reserves. I hope for the sake of the Venezuelan people that the
country will soon transition into a vibrant democracy that can protect human
rights and rebuild what was once a robust economy. But I am afraid the odds are
steep. Chaos and instability, civil strife, and further repression are the more
likely outcomes, and even oil companies will have little appetite to invest in
such an environment.
The president’s lawless and brazen decision to go-it-alone in Venezuela, and his mafia-like threats against other nations of the region, including our friends and allies, is a return to the gun boat diplomacy of the Gilded Age, when the strong ruled the weak. Trump loves to assert and project power, and there is no easier way to do so than by waging imperial wars. Unless Congress and the American people reestablish the balance of power and reign in Trump’s lawlessness, international diplomacy and the rule of law will irreparably suffer, powerful oligarchs will rule the world within their “spheres of influence,” and the world will be a darker, more dangerous place.
