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
Updates On The Global Sumud Flotilla: Saif and Thiago Are Free
After their kidnapping and illegal detention in Israel, Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Avila have been released. Our global pressure worked. But our work is far from over.
On The Global Sumud Flotilla, What The World with Israel in It Looks Like, And What It Does to Our Nervous Systems
To exist in the world where Israel, too, exists – to physically be and function in such a world – is hard on our nervous systems. The new horrors of the kidnapping of Thiago Avila and Saif Abu Keshek are yet another reminder of how that heaviness won’t go away, as long as Israel -…
How Did Jon Stewart Miss The Greatest Piece of Satire on His Show?
Here’s a reminder that choosing to interview someone who history – and, hopefully, the ICJ – will remember as a war criminal and a genocide enabler, like Annalena Baerbock, is very much not cool. Especially when you have a massive platform.