US Military Intervention in Venezuela Undermines International Law

Key Quotes

"You know I I would say the very first thought that came to mind was the ends do not justify the means here I'm very pleased to have Maduro gone from Venezuela however I'm not pleased in the way that it was done and my concerns about the latter far outweigh my happiness or satisfaction about the former"

David French expresses immediate concern about the method used to capture Nicolas Maduro, prioritizing the legality and ethical implications of the action over the desired outcome of removing him from power. French argues that the "ends do not justify the means," indicating a belief that even a positive result cannot excuse an improper or unlawful process.

"Well I'm impressed with how civilized David's first reaction to to the news is mine was probably not fit for a family newspaper but I agree and I was looking at it partly through the eyes of a lot of Russian dissidents who I think in uh in our dreams we see somebody swooping in and removing Putin but not like this because yeah I agree that the ends don't justify the means and the means here are the means of really demolishing any semblance of hope for for international law for respect for norms for a post World War II order that we hadn't still given up hope of creating"

Masha Gessen shares David French's sentiment regarding the means used in the Maduro capture, extending the concern to the broader implications for international law and the post-World War II order. Gessen suggests that such actions, even if aimed at removing a dictator, undermine the very foundations of international norms and respect for established legal frameworks.

"So first it's uh it's an aggressive war it's an aggressive war waged in violation of without legal justification for aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter that we are party to by the way ever since the first World War the western powers have been trying to come to a world order or a world consensus against the notion of aggressive war without a direct attack on the United States or an act of collective self defense according to treaty for example going in and seizing the head of state with military force is an act of war"

David French asserts that the military action against Venezuela constitutes an aggressive war, violating the UN Charter and lacking legal justification. French emphasizes that seizing a head of state through military force is an act of war, particularly when not in response to a direct attack on the United States or a treaty-based collective self-defense.

"The problem for for us as we're looking at it is really there's just no real comparison between the two in the sense of what were the events leading up to it right before the invasion of Panama the Panamanian government declared a state of war against the US so that's a big difference number two the Panamanian government had killed a marine seriously injured another had taken another into custody where they had brutally beaten him so you had direct attacks on American military forces you had not congressional authorization for war but you had a bipartisan consensus here you had some congressional action afterwards as well that essentially ratifies much of the act of the president's action that's a very very different from here this is completely unilateral"

David French distinguishes the Venezuela operation from the 1989 invasion of Panama, highlighting key differences in the preceding events and the level of justification. French points out that Panama had declared a state of war and attacked U.S. military personnel, unlike the Venezuela situation, which he characterizes as completely unilateral and lacking comparable justification.

"The problem for us as we're looking at it is really there's just no real comparison between the two in the sense of what were the events leading up to it right before the invasion of Panama the Panamanian government declared a state of war against the US so that's a big difference number two the Panamanian government had killed a marine seriously injured another had taken another into custody where they had brutally beaten him so you had direct attacks on American military forces you had not congressional authorization for war but you had a bipartisan consensus here you had some congressional action afterwards as well that essentially ratifies much of the act of the president's action that's a very very different from here this is completely unilateral"

David French argues that the justification used for the 1989 invasion of Panama, which involved direct attacks on U.S. military forces and bipartisan consensus, is fundamentally different from the unilateral action taken in Venezuela. French explains that the prior events in Panama provided a clearer, albeit still debated, basis for military intervention, contrasting it with the current operation's lack of such specific provocations.

"Imagine if you had an indictment of Donald Trump for say some sort of financial crime in the United Kingdom or France or whatever and they execute a raid in the White House with air support would we sit there and go what a spectacular police operation that was just executed no everyone would know that was a brazen act of war and there is there's nothing civilian about this despite the fig leaf of the FBI presence in the actual attack"

David French uses a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the absurdity of framing the Venezuela operation as a law enforcement action rather than an act of war. French posits that if foreign powers raided the White House to arrest a U.S. president, it would unequivocally be seen as an act of war, regardless of any nominal civilian presence.

"And as for Putin I think that early on on Saturday there were some commentators who sort of said oh Putin is probably upset because Maduro was his ally Venezuela has been historically an ally of Russia but I think actually this operation comports with Putin's worldview perfectly he views the world as a place that some very powerful men can carve up they can make backroom deals and they can decide where their spheres of influence are it's sort of the other post World War II order it's not the the legal order the liberal order that we usually refer to it's not race based it's not human rights based it's men sitting around in Yalta saying you take that and we'll leave you alone and we'll take this and this is exactly what Putin has been advancing in his speeches and his articles and in his actions for more than a decade"

Masha Gessen suggests that Vladimir Putin would likely view the Venezuela operation as consistent with his own worldview of great power politics and spheres of influence. Gessen explains that Putin sees the world as one where powerful men make deals and divide influence, a model that contrasts with the liberal, rights-based international order and aligns with historical precedents like the Yalta Conference.

"The reason why we have this much maligned world order to begin with is the architects of it almost all of them had been through two world wars by that point you know World War I was so catastrophic it was called the war to end all wars and it had roughly 16 17 18 million people who died in it well the structures and institutions designed to prevent a World War II failed utterly and largely because we didn't participate in them and so then we had a World War II that was even worse than World War I beyond human imagination how bad it was and so after World War II we try again we try again with what are the institutions that we can create that can prevent a