US Military Intervention in Venezuela Undermines International Law

The recent US military action in Venezuela, ostensibly to capture Nicolas Maduro, reveals a dangerous undercurrent in US foreign policy: a willingness to disregard international law and established norms for perceived national interest, echoing pre-World War II power dynamics rather than the post-war order. This conversation highlights how the "ends justify the means" mentality, particularly when driven by a desire for power and majesty over peace and prosperity, can lead to aggressive actions that undermine global stability and the very foundations of international justice. Readers who engage with this analysis will gain a critical lens through which to view geopolitical maneuvers, understanding the hidden consequences of unilateral action and the erosion of the international legal framework, offering a strategic advantage in navigating an increasingly unpredictable world.

The Perilous Return of Gunboat Diplomacy

The swift capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Venezuela, framed by some as a law enforcement action, is more accurately described by David French as an act of war, a significant departure from established international norms. French meticulously dismantles the administration's justifications, contrasting this operation with the 1989 invasion of Panama. The key difference, he argues, lies in the absence of direct attacks on US forces or a clear declaration of war, making the Venezuelan operation a unilateral act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. The invocation of a legal opinion that allows for the execution of indictments abroad via military force is particularly concerning, as it represents a dangerous bootstrapping of executive war-making power that bypasses constitutional checks and balances. This approach, he suggests, is not a modern interpretation of law enforcement but a regressive step back to the "gunboat diplomacy" of the Gilded Age, a time when powerful nations exerted their will through military might in their perceived spheres of influence.

"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

Masha Gessen amplifies this concern, drawing parallels between the Venezuelan operation and Vladimir Putin's worldview. She posits that such actions confirm Putin's belief in a world carved up by powerful men making backroom deals, a stark contrast to the post-World War II liberal order. This "Yalta-esque" approach, where spheres of influence are paramount, signals to Putin that his hands are untied in Europe, potentially emboldening further aggression. The Trump administration's rhetoric of "we're going to run that country" after the operation, combined with the lack of congressional briefing, signifies a new and terrifying territory in international relations, where quantity of aggressive actions leads to a qualitative shift in global dynamics.

The Unraveling of the Post-War Order

David French articulates a profound concern: the United States' withdrawal from its role in upholding the post-World War II order. He explains that this order, established after two devastating world wars, was designed to prevent global catastrophe. Its success, however imperfect, lay in deterring major power conflict. By aligning itself with Russia and China in a belief system centered on spheres of influence and great power competition, rather than the established international legal framework, the US risks the collapse of this order. This shift, French argues, moves away from the "war to end all wars" ideal and towards a pre-World War I dynamic, where spheres of influence were less neatly defined and often led to conflict. The consequences of this systemic shift are dire, potentially unleashing the very nightmares the post-war order was designed to prevent.

Masha Gessen connects this to the ongoing war in Ukraine, highlighting the disturbing similarities in the design of the missions. She points out that Putin's envisioned swift removal of Zelenskyy mirrors the Trump administration's apparent strategy in Venezuela -- a quick strike to decapitate the leadership. This parallel is crucial because it suggests a shared understanding of power dynamics among autocrats, a rejection of democratic processes in favor of decisive military action. Furthermore, Gessen notes Trump's pressure on Ukraine to accept unfavorable peace terms, combined with the Venezuelan operation, sends a clear message to Europe: they are left to contend with Russian aggression alone. This, she warns, is compounded by Russia's ongoing hybrid warfare in Europe, a reality often overlooked in the US.

"And now the message that Venezuela sends combined with this pressure that he's been exerting on Ukraine is to the rest of Europe which is that the rest of Europe is left alone with Russian aggression and Putin has made it very clear that he's not going to stop at Ukraine."

-- Masha Gessen

"America First" as Sphere of Influence, Not Isolationism

The conversation then pivots to how this aggressive foreign policy aligns with the "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) ethos. David French argues that "America First" in this context is not isolationist but rather a declaration of dominance within a self-defined sphere of influence, akin to the Monroe Doctrine. He contends that Trump's actions, like bullying Canada and Mexico, demonstrate a belief that nations within America's "backyard" should adhere to US dictates for American benefit, regardless of their own national interests. This aggressive assertion of power, he suggests, is driven by a desire for personal success and a projection of strength, rather than a deeply held ideological principle. The Venezuelan operation, perceived as a "big Trump win," is therefore easily digestible for his base, who prioritize his perceived victories over consistent foreign policy principles.

Masha Gessen agrees that MAGA is largely a personality cult centered around Trump's success. However, she adds that Trump is tapping into a timeless autocratic playbook: using imperial wars to project greatness. This tactic, she observes, is particularly effective in a fractured media landscape, where the narrative can be manipulated to portray even questionable actions as successes. She highlights Stephen Miller's reported support for the Venezuela attack, suggesting a motivation to deter Venezuelan migrants by destabilizing their home country. This illustrates how specific, often harsh, policy outcomes can be masked by the broader "America First" rhetoric, making it a flexible and potent tool for consolidating power.

"America first means just America runs its sphere of influence. This is the main consideration. America, if American national interests dictate that say Maduro needs to go, then unlike say previous administrations which would say, well, Maduro needs to go, but we need to do this in a lawful way... the way the Trump administration views it is much more like Carl von Clausewitz: war is an extension of policy by other means."

-- David French

The Illusion of Hacking War and the Risk of Unforeseen Consequences

Both French and Gessen express deep concern about Trump's perceived belief that he has "hacked the system" of warfare -- that minimal boots on the ground, combined with decisive strikes, can achieve lasting change. French warns that this is a dangerous illusion. While such operations can yield immediate, significant outcomes (like the killing of Soleimani or the capture of Maduro), they often lack enduring impact without long-term investment. This leads to a cycle of further conflict, as the underlying issues remain unaddressed. Gessen points out that this approach, often driven by the "television effect" and a desire for immediate gratification, ignores the hard-earned wisdom embedded in international laws and norms. These rules, she emphasizes, are not arbitrary but are the product of immense suffering and are designed to prevent global catastrophe. By disregarding them, Trump is unleashing forces beyond his control, risking a future far darker than the present. The public's short attention span for foreign interventions, unless a crisis directly impacts Americans, grants leaders like Trump a dangerous degree of free rein, allowing them to sow chaos with limited domestic scrutiny.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Actions (Next 1-3 Months):

  • Publicly reaffirm commitment to international law: The administration should issue clear statements emphasizing adherence to the UN Charter and international legal frameworks, even when pursuing perceived national interests.
  • Brief Congress comprehensively: Ensure full and transparent briefings for all members of Congress regarding any military operations, fostering domestic consensus and accountability.
  • Engage in public diplomacy: Actively communicate the rationale behind foreign policy decisions, emphasizing the long-term goals and adherence to international norms, rather than solely focusing on immediate outcomes.
  • Support multilateral institutions: Increase contributions and active participation in organizations like the UN, demonstrating a commitment to collective security and dispute resolution.

• Longer-Term Investments (6-18 Months and Beyond):

  • Rebuild alliances: Invest diplomatic capital in strengthening relationships with traditional allies, fostering a united front against aggression and promoting shared values.
  • Develop durable strategies for conflict resolution: Move beyond short-term military interventions to invest in long-term diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian strategies that address the root causes of instability.
  • Educate the public on international order: Launch public awareness campaigns to explain the importance of the post-World War II order, its benefits, and the risks associated with its erosion. This requires patience, as the payoff is in sustained stability, not immediate headlines.
  • Prioritize diplomacy over unilateral action: Establish clear protocols that mandate exhaustive diplomatic efforts and multilateral consultation before considering any military intervention, even within perceived spheres of influence. This investment in process will pay off by preventing costly and destabilizing unilateral actions.