As every reader must know now, the United States has used military force against Venezuela, following years of escalating sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and explicit threats of intervention. Whatever view one takes of Venezuela's government, this action matters because it was undertaken without authorisation under international law.
That fact cannot be brushed aside as a technicality. It goes to the heart of how states relate to one another, and to whether we still live in a world governed, however imperfectly, by shared rules rather than by unilateral power.
That said, nothing I say here is a defence of the Maduro regime, which had obvious issues, but opposition to a government does never, in my opinion, confer a licence to abandon the legal framework that exists precisely to prevent powerful states from imposing their will by force. If international law applies only when convenient, it does not apply at all.
Why international law exists
Let me be clear about that suggestion, because what is obvious is that the modern international legal order was not designed to guarantee justice in every case. It was, instead, designed to limit harm. Its core purpose is to reduce the likelihood of war by constraining the circumstances in which force can be used.
That is why the UN Charter sets a high bar, and why it is right that the UN has objected to Trump's abuse of it yesterday. That Charter, created to prevent a repetition of the aggression of the 1930s, suggests that military action is lawful only in self-defence against an imminent armed attack, or when authorised collectively by the Security Council.
There are two obvious points to make. The first is that the US came nowhere near meeting either of these criteria yesterday. No one can suggest Venezuela was going to attack the USA. There was no UN resolution.
The second is that these restrictions are not naïve idealism. They are a recognition of how easily necessity can be invoked by those in power, and how quickly moral certainty can become an excuse for violence. Once states are free to decide for themselves when international law no longer applies, the distinction between order and disorder collapses.
The return of colonial logic
What is, perhaps, most troubling about the US action is not only the immediate damage it causes, but the colonial logic it reintroduces into international relations.
Colonialism was never simply about territory. It was always about hierarchy and the belief that some states are entitled to decide the fate of others; that sovereignty is conditional; and that force may be used to secure compliance where persuasion fails. That logic never entirely disappeared, but it had at least been formally disavowed.
What we are now seeing is its return in explicit form. Venezuela is being treated less as a sovereign country than as a US problem to be managed, a risk to be neutralised, or an asset to be controlled. Once that mindset is accepted, it becomes very difficult to argue that borders, governments, or political systems deserve respect unless they align with the preferences of the powerful, and there are very obviously others with power who will notice this and may take action as a result.
Precedent and the domino effect
International law relies heavily on precedent. That is because state behaviour is contagious. What one powerful country does today becomes the justification for others tomorrow.
If unilateral military action is acceptable in Venezuela, it becomes harder to argue against similar claims elsewhere. It is not fanciful to worry about a domino effect.
Cuba has long been framed in US political discourse as an unresolved problem.
Trump has already discussed Greenland as a strategic asset rather than a self-determining territory.
Even relations with Canada have, at times, been treated transactionally rather than as a partnership of equals.
More seriously, the precedent matters far beyond the Western Hemisphere. Russia and China watch these events closely. Each has its own narratives of security, protection, and necessity. Each now has another example to cite when accused of breaching international norms. Taiwan, the Baltic States, and more are at risk.
This is how restraint erodes: not through grand declarations, but through selective exceptions.
Law, fear, and stability
There is a phrase that I use often, and which mattered enormously in the construction of the post-war order. That is, freedom from fear.
That freedom does not arise from military dominance. It is based on predictability; from knowing that even powerful states are constrained, that disagreements will be handled through institutions, and that force is exceptional rather than routine.
When international law weakens, fear will always fill the gap. As we are already seeing, states rearm themselves. Alliances harden. Suspicion replaces cooperation. Diplomacy falters in an environment of mistrust. And smaller countries, in particular, are forced to assume that their safety depends not on law, but on favour.
That is not stability. It is a state of permanent insecurity. It is about living in fear. That's where we are now.
The UK's dilemma
For the UK, this moment exposes a long-standing tension that can no longer be avoided.
The UK claims to support a rules-based international order. That claim has meaning only if it applies even when allies breach those rules. To say otherwise is to admit that law is subordinate to political convenience.
Condemning the United States for unlawful action would undoubtedly be uncomfortable. It might strain diplomatic relations. But failing to do so carries its own cost: the loss of credibility, and the implicit acceptance that the UK is willing to tolerate illegality when it suits.
In the long run, a country that relies on law for its own security should be reluctant to undermine it elsewhere.
Starmer has to get off the fence: the time for tough talking, even if not that speech from Love Actually, might have arrived.
The EU and the future of restraint
For the European Union, the implications are even starker. The EU is, at its core, a legal project. Its legitimacy rests on the idea that rules bind power, rather than the other way around.
If the EU cannot articulate a clear position in defence of international law now, it weakens the very principles on which it is built. Ambiguity may feel diplomatically safer, but it is strategically dangerous. It signals that norms are negotiable and that enforcement depends on who is involved. This idea is already imperilled in Europe by the actions of states like Hungary. Failure to uphold the rule of international law now threatens the whole EU project: this crisis might be existential for it.
Alliance, not subordination
This raises the most difficult question of all. How can the UK and EU continue to describe their relationship with Donald Trump's United States as an alliance if it requires silence in the face of actions that undermine the legal order on which their own security depends?
Diplomatic relations must continue. Cooperation will still be necessary. But alliance does not mean acquiescence. Lines have to be drawn in the sand. Acceptability has to be indicated. Positions must be taken. The message must be clear: treating power as a substitute for law is unacceptable.
The reality is that if international law is to survive, it will do so only because states insist on it, even when doing so is awkward.
Where this leaves us
This is an awkward moment. It needs to be acknowledged. The UK, the EU, and other states with influence on Trump have a choice to make, which could only be dangerously postponed. Do they want a world in which disputes are managed through law, however imperfectly, or one in which they are settled by those with the greatest capacity to coerce? That choice is not abstract. It shapes how safe people feel, how states behave, and whether fear or cooperation becomes the organising principle of international life.
Defending international law is not about defending particular governments. It is about protecting the conditions under which freedom from fear remains possible at all. There is only one right choice to make. The politics of care must prevail. Trump's fascist aggression (because it is nothing less than that) is imperilling it. We have been here before. What will we do?
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If the mad orange one is appeased then he will keep going and to for other countries. So will Russia and so will China.
It is a scary time. The world has a choice. Stand up to these three which could result in military conflict or face the the prospect of being subservient to one or all of them.
Craig
I’m glad to say the Liberal. Democrat reaction has been very much on the same lines,
with Ed Davey saying:
“Keir Starmer should condemn Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela.
Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator, but unlawful attacks like this make us all less safe.
Trump is giving a green light to the likes of Putin and Xi to attack other countries with impunity.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/when-the-worlds-policeman-goes-rogue-78916.html
https://www.libdemvoice.org/why-is-trump-getting-away-with-venezuela-strikes-78913.html
Happy New Year
Denis, you quote Ed Davey as saying, ‘Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator…..’ The great majority of world media has parroted a similar line, even endorsing the canard that Maduro is destroying the infrastructure of his country, impoverishing his people and personally heading up a major drugs cartel. For an alternative view I urge you to watch the interview of now acting President Delcy Rodriguez by Max Blumenthal from about four years ago. See https://x.com/i/status/2007530529097232487. Among other aspects she highlights the robustness of the Venezuelan voting system, as endorsed by the EU and the transformation of Venezuelan education, health and literacy from the worst to the best in South America. These are hardly the hallmarks of a ‘brutal dictator’
When one thinks about it all, aren’t entrenched continually marketed patriarchal paradigms of societal interactions behind all the greed, colonialism, violations of international law and neoliberalism extant today. It’s even in horticultural practices of “forcing” growth and fruiting for lower cost better yields with dubious nutrition and “let’s not look too closely” at laws enforcing short term profit over sustainability of corporate and societal well being. We really do need to keep an ongoing wider public dialogue going about sustainable well being caring societal paradigms. Eventually a better societal paradigm will emerge.
Agree with most. Bit of nuance: Biden put a $25m “bounty” on Maduro. The USA has ALWAYS treated/used/abused the carribean and Latin America as America’s backyard. Trump’s actions are consistent with e.g. Shrub I’s actions in Panama (1980s/1990s), Chile 1970s etc. The USA has always regarded a “rules-based international order” as optional = OK as long as it works for the USA. In terms of the EU, I have argued that it is now time to expel large numbers of US orgs and companies from Europe. WW1 and WW2 weakened Europe and facilitated the economic rise of the USA. US narratives (helping free Europe/keep it free) are attempts to plaster over a more brutal real-politique.
Other observation: instability in the middle and not so middle east (plus Africa), mostly instigated by the USA fosters waves of migrants – which in turn fosters political instability in the EU, which fosters the rise of the right whinge (supported by the USA). The EU could/should make life VERY difficult for the USA – regardless of the administration. The EU does not & never has had “shared values” with the USA, time we recognised that. Make Europe Great Again – MEGA!
(& a PS – at very best the USA is a British aristocratic construct – a bit of democracy – but not too much – enough to keep the serfs in line & obviously no king).
Mike, I have long (1980s) argued that all US military and related interests should be expelled. Alas, 45 years of the extraction economy and US bootlicking has left us with US corporations calling the national finance tune and buying up infrastructure.
Mr Griffin – obvs I 100% agree. We have, gradually, turned ourselves into US serfs since August 1914, & helped in no small part by a US citizen …a certain Mr Churchill and latterly the blonde blob. Did not need to be so.
Absolutely spot on analysis, Europe is being played by the Americans who just see us as another playground where they can come on holiday and where their great great grandparents may have come from.
We are being systematically exploited and effectively broken up by the Americans, walking (stumbling) into another war which will be fought here and where our countries will bear the brunt of all the losses.
It’s clear Trump cares not about any of the legal niceties or requirements. He clearly believes the world is to be ruled by strongmen, each with their own sphere of influence, as evidenced by his “We want good neighbours” comment yesterday, with him deciding what “good neighbours” means. Maybe I missed him in all the coverage, but JD Vance was conspicuous by his absence from Mar a Lago yesterday. One suspects his idea of America First is different from his boss’s.
International law doesn’t work. That’s primarily because there are 5 permanent members of the UN security council each with a veto on resolutions, and 3 of them do not adhere to international law.
The US has become a rogue state. Their constitution is designed to prevent this. But this requires that their elected representatives act responsibly and they do not. Trump should have been convicted after impeachment but Republicans were captured by a cult of personality and failed to have the courage to do so. There are many issues on which he should have been impeached during the past year; Venezuela is only the latest. But even impeachment has not happened.
The US is no longer a reliable ally, and perhaps hasn’t been so for many years.
Other states have little or no influence over Trump, who does what he wants.
All this puts the UK, Europe and many other states in a very difficult position. I don’t think the UK has faced up to this reality. But it does no good to hide from the truth.
Acceoted
The vetoes have to go.
In the great words of Baldrick (Blackadder), I hope the following does not come true…..again,
“I heard it started when some fella called Archie Duke shot an ostrich ‘cos he was hungry”
Surely we have had enough stupidity by singular idiots.
The UK has, since 1945, always toed the line with respect to US interests. At Yalta the US and USSR, carrved up the world with Churchill a bystander who chose Roosevelt over Stalin as ally. Suez showed the price of deviation and Wilson doesn’t get enough credit for staying out of Vietnam without breaking with the US. Blair and Iraq was never about rights/wrongs…. merely backing up the US to the hilt.
The question is “where do we draw the line”…..
Clive
I would argue Eisenhower was right in 1956.
The USSR was invading Hungary and Eisenhower wanted to rally world opinion against such an action. Then the two European powers of the time, Britain and France ( with Israel) start a colonial type intervention after the Egyptians nationalised the canal (it being a major financial asset and secured foreign currency ).
Much of the Commonwealth was horrified. It wasn’t just the US. The French in the following year set up the EEC. Britain declined to join. The second big mistake of the 1950s?
Trump talks of getting back what was ‘stolen’ by Venezuela. The wheel has turned.
I agree about Wilson and Vietnam.
Certainly, Eisenhower was correct over Suez…. but my point was that when the UK (plus France and Israel) tried to pursue their own policy it collapsed when the US disapproved.
PS. Suez also gave us the classic speech by Nye Bevan calling Eden stupid or dishonest…. but either way, unfit to be PM.
South America ( other than Brazil ) got independence in the early 19th century but the societies remained colonial with a small elite -European heritage landowners and a population of indigenous and slaves. The Andean states and Mexico, mainly descendants of the indigenous. In Chile and Argentina the masses were mainly poor European immigrants. There will be little popular support for anything which looks like colonialism.
Secondly, during the 20th century the US has usually backed authoritarian regimes and turned a blind eye or even helped repression of trade unions, left parties etc. Operation Condor was a Cold War operation to fight ‘subversion”. Resentment of ‘Yankee’ interference is not far below the surface.
In Chile, in 1973, the US backed a coup installing Pinochet. Trump has put 50% tariffs of Brazil because Bolsonaro has been sent to prison for trying to overthrow the election. So many who might have been glad to see Maduro go, won’t want a long term American involvement .
A former American army officer I know on Facebook says there is a ratio 20:000 used for occupation studies. 20 soldiers per thousand of the population. And troops need to be rotated out of operations for leave, retaining etc. The lack of a proper plan of occupation created chaos in Iraq.
The population of Venezuela is about 28 million. It could become a huge commitment. And useful to China or Russia if lots of US forces are tied down.
In the best situation -acceptance of a temporary occupation- it might just be possible. But if it looks like the US is pillaging their oil -their main asset- I doubt the population will assent.
Trump’s intervention may well be a vanity project -Making America Great Again- which over-rides reality.
But Reality is not to be denied.
If true, that’s a 560,000 troop deployment. From a country with widespread poverty and massive social need.
I don’t think they could do it. At least, long term. If they could increase oil production and sales quickly (unlikely) and shared most of the revenue, ( only a little less unlikely) they could find local allies. But for all the reasons I gave earlier I expect there will be growing resistance and the American public ( and military) will want out.
I fear that all of this will end badly for the USA. I hope I am wrong.
Note: Many Venezuelan refugees (legal, illegal and those under TPS) residing in Florida seem very happy about this development.
As an Iranian, my husband is following events concerning Venezuela quite closely – as they say in Canada on the camping trip, you don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your friends: it looks like Venezuela didn’t run fast enough!
It also looks increasingly like an internal coup, aided by Trump’s bombs, but not actual regime change. Watch this space for further developments in the governance of Venezuela.
The more pertinent issue is ‘What is Trump going to do with Maduro now?’
Previous US presidents have ‘presided’ over local executions (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghaddafi, Osama Bin Laden – Bashar al-Assad got off lightly it seems) to rid themselves of unwanted leaders.
If we assume that Trump kidnapped Maduro as a vanity project – because he could -instead of perhaps accepting a local execution, he is now stuck with the problem: Does the US put him on trial, hand him over to ??? exile him somewhere.
Surely this dilemma only compounds the total insanity of Trump’s behaviour.
People on here with the usual western arrogance talking as if the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was some sort of blip. ‘Oh if we did this, it would have been different in Iraq’ blah blah
Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children died in that invasion and occupation. And caused instability they lasts till today along with a huge refugee crisis in the area.
Hang on.
We knew that.
We objected.
What are you accusing us of?
I know next to nothing about Maduro, so maybe he’s been awful, but how does that give the USA the right to put him on trial in a US court of law? Is he supposed to have broken US law or international law? A Venezuelan court I could understand, even maybe in an international court, but the US, for heaven’s sake?
What is his chance of a fair trial?
Richard,
I am reliably informed by a military expert that “disengaging from the enemy while in contact” without them realising until you’ve achieved a new more defendable position is one of the most difficult and dangerous things you can attempt.
This is exactly what the UK needs to pull off.
Those on the left/progressive side of politics may want Starmer to do a Hugh Grant in Love Actually but it would be most unwise.
Regardless of which party is in power the UK needs to quietly undo reliance for Defence, Intelligence, Political & Cultural support, economic ties and much else on the US. This will take years of determined effort regardless of cost.
The UK has been an increasingly a vassal state since arguably Macmillian. Sixty years on increasingly servile behaviour will not be reduced overnight.
Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Canada just provide impetus to get on with the tasking of disengaging and constructing a new defensible position.
Intn’l law is deteriorating and the strong will do what they can and the weak will do what they must.
The UK must do what it knows it must. A position most of us hate except for the Quislings which I have no doubt are throughout the establishment.
Depressing.
Noted, and I appreciate all the difficulties. But I think the ethics have to come into this. So, the Hugh Grant approach is not wholly out of order. Lines have to be drawn in the sand.