Australia and the World Past and Present

It was all quite extraordinary.

U.S. military forces flew into Venezuela, violating that country’s sovereignty and kidnapped the President and his wife, and then flew them back to the United States.

Some have accused Trump of naked imperialism.

It was another example of Trump doing whatever he likes.

The event shows the wide gap in capacities between the U.S. military and and the armed forces of a country like Venezuela. We witnessed the ability of the U.S. to operate effectively and decisively in another part of the world.

The U.S. capture of Maduro is certainly a violation of convention.

It also undermines a rules-based order in the international system.

It sets a poor precedent. If Putin were to capture the Ukrainian President, or if China were to take the President of Taiwan, they could say that they were just following Trump’s example.

Trump has revived the Monroe Doctrine and has declared that the western hemisphere is American turf.

I am no fan of Maduro, but it raises the question of whether means can ever justify the ends.

Maduro helped to create security problems in the region – mostly through the huge number of migrants and refugees that have fled Venezuela and are eking out a living in neighbouring states.

When states act unilaterally, and according to a leader’s whims, it inserts greater uncertainty into the international system.

Trump has followed up his action in Venezuela with bellicose rhetoric against the President of Colombia and the Cuban regime.

The U.S. action in Venezuela seems to violate state sovereignty as set out in the UN Charter (Article 2 (1)).

It also appears to violate the prohibition of the use of force (Article 2 (4)) and the principle of non-intervention (Article 2 (7))

It may also violate head-of-state immunity under customary international law.

There is a maxim in international relations – that the mighty do as they please and the weak do what they must. The recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela is a case in point.