Trump was right to decapitate Venezuela's government
This is true regardless of whether it was legal.
What should Trump’s decapitation of Venezuela’s government last month teach us about international law? Well, at least what should a certain construction of it teach us? I’m no expert on what happened, why it happened, or what the likely effects will be. But, for the sake of argument, let’s make the following assumptions.
That the problem of drug-smuggling into the United States is a major one, ruining the lives of thousands of Americans and proliferating further crime.
That the government of the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, was not merely unable to prevent cartels from smuggling drugs from his country into the US but was actively aiding and abetting them.
That removing Maduro will go a long way toward solving the problem.
And that there was no United Nations body able and willing to intervene.
If those assumptions are correct, then I would conclude that the US was morally entitled by legitimate national interest to use force unilaterally, as a last resort, to effect regime-change.
My stance is roughly that of the leader of the Conservative Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, when she said of the US’s intervention that it was “morally right”, even though “the legal certainty is not yet clear” (“Badenoch backs US use of force”, Times, 7 January). I say ‘roughly’, because I’d go one step further. I’d say it was right, even if it was illegal.
International Law & Moral Rights
‘Because international law is so flawed, blind obedience to it is irresponsible.’
