Overnight, the US launched a military attack on Venezuela and seized the president and his wife. They have now been indicted in a New York court on charges related to narco-terrorism (flooding a country with drugs in order to attack it).
For background, President Maduro succeeded Hugo Chavez but has never been recognized as legitimate. Evidence suggests that in the previous two presidential elections, the opposition won. Maduro is perceived to have used his position in order to further the cause of the drug cartels.
Commenting on social media, Nigel Farage wrote:
I think Farage is fundamentally wrong on this. If Western leaders don’t themselves abide by international law then they are no better than the leaders of Russia and China or indeed any rogue state. If they do not follow the rule of law then the action taken against Maduru becomes little more than a fight between two strongmen to see who is strongest.
Farage is also wrong because Trump’s actions are not going to make China or Russia think l think twice about their actions. Rather it encourages the same kind of logic and reasoning towards Ukraine and Taiwan.
Farage could perhaps have reasoned instead that this was the arrest of a criminal, not recognized internationally as head of state and therefore potentially within international law on the narrow issue of whether he had immunity. Even still, arresting someone on foreign soil is not seen as legal under international law.
The other argument that could be made is that the drug trade into US and violence amounted to aggression against the US. In that case, an argument could be made for war as a form of self defence but should go through strict tests. There is precedent for this, although the UN condemned it, with the 1988 invasion of Panama and seizure of General Noriega. Additionally, there were overt attacks on military personnel rather than the more novel charge if “narcio terrorism”. Whilst still disputable, the US at least sought a pretext within international law rather than just giving the impression that they and their interests were above the law.
Finally it might be possible to have recognized a legitimate democratically elected government in Venezuela and support their efforts to gain control. This would have needed clear support from the wider international community
Trump’s actions are likely to have a severe impact on the US and her allies relationships with other South American countries. The UK’ s concerns will be how Argentina views this and what the implications are for the Falklands.
Christians wanting to think through questions around ethics and public theology concerning this action might want to reflect on two discussion points.
- Farage’s argument relies on the presumption that the end justification is the means. Does it?
- Donald Trump’s approach to international conflict seems often to rely on the virtuous person argument. In other words he believes that he is basically a good person with good motives therefore his actions must be right. Often the political narrative falls along those lines. People are likely to either see Trump as good, a hero and therefore his words and actions as good and heroic, or to see him as bad, the villain and therefore his words and actions as bad. Does the Bible give us a better ethic for assessing such situations?
Faithroots 