No public persona, media outlet, country leader, political analyst, or national broadcaster can reasonably be seen as taking international law seriously if they do not condemn the U.S. military aggression against Venezuela.
Depending on where you live, you might have woken up to a piece of news that likely needed some time to digest: Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife were kidnapped in a U.S. military operation. After months of U.S. military escalations in the Caribbean, the U.S. conducted airstrikes on Venezuelan soil, a move feared by many.
As the story develops, including Trump openly stating the U.S. will be “running Venezuela” now and allowing U.S. oil companies to “fix its broken oil infrastructure,” one thing cannot be clearer. This violent removal of Nicolás Maduro should be condemned by anyone who wants ever to be taken seriously again when talking about international law.
In an article in The Guardian entitled “Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?“, legal scholars interviewed specifically point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” These scholars claim the U.S. has very likely violated this article, which requires countries to respect the sovereignty of others and prohibits the use of military force.
In short, when one state invades and kidnaps the leader of another sovereign state, it is very much not legally OK.
Not framing the U.S. strikes on Venezuela as, first of all, potential criminal activity prohibited by international law is, in effect, omitting such an essential legal context that this choice, too, seems criminal. It is journalistic malpractice, no accident but a conscious choice to manufacture consent.
It is not about liking or disliking a certain leader of a sovereign state.
It’s about the illegality of one country invading another and kidnapping its head of state.
This is where the story has to be, first and foremost, about the U.S. act of aggression against Venezuela. The same story can surely go into all the nuances it wants to (and should) go into.
Yet if international law considerations are not mentioned, if the very fact that the U.S. can seemingly do anything it wants to any other state or non-state actor is not presented as worthy of our concern, we can guess what else to expect: a wide-scale amnesia of the history of U.S. imperialism in Latin America and bowing down to the U.S. empire. It is that same empire that has just reminded us – in addition to fueling the complete destruction of Gaza and sheltering Israel from any accountability – that it is very much alive.
To see what actions you can take to stop the escalation of the U.S. aggression against Venezuela, see CODEPINK’s emergency action list here ✊🏽
As always, stay strong, check on others, and keep your heart open.
❤️💔❤️
Justina
Receive my work directly to your inbox:
Latest from the Blog
How Fascist Regimes See Growing up, Standing up for People, and Writing Poems as Threats
Hind Rajab was killed by Israeli forces two years ago today – and that is one of the threads of history that I talk about in my essay-like video. It’s about fascism, its victims, the heaviness of witnessing these horrors, and how we can move forward.
On U.S. State Violence: A Continuation, Not a Rupture
The recent murder of Alex Pretti by ICE agents is one painfully clear indication – or, rather, a reminder – that in the U.S, the violence abroad has come back as fascism at home.
After Having Enabled It for Decades, The EU Is Appalled by U.S. Imperialism — Only When It Threatens Its Shores
After having enabled U.S. and Israeli military aggression around the world, notice the EU appeal to international law when the territorial integrity of Denmark is threatened by the U.S.
The Exploding Head Media 