At the weekend, Donald Trump sent troops into Venezuela in order to extract the president, Nicolas Maduro and have him arrested and tried for Narco-Terrorism in New York. I wrote in response to the actions and also with reference to Nigel Farage’s comments here.
I see that Kemi Badenoch has now given her view of the situation which can be summed up as that Trump was morally right to take this action but the legality remains in question. I wanted to pick up on that response here because I think it has important implications. I also happen to think that Badenoch gets this call wrong.
Kemi Badenoch’s starting premise is that Maduro is a wicked and dangerous person, that he had abused his position and usurped power illegitimately in Venezuela and posed a threat to the US. Therefore, the morally correct outcome is that he should be deposed and behind bars. She acknowledges that the methods employed may not have followed international law. However, she suggests that this does not matter so much because international law is about agreements between countries and therefore is subject to change. She is arguing that international law in terms particularly of the institutions involved has broken down and is ineffective. Countries when determining what actions to take and whether those actions are legitimate and moral cannot rely on the conventions and agreements of International Law.
As is often the case with politicians’ arguments, to some degree, Badenoch has a point. It is true that International Law is what nations have agreed, primarily through treaties but to some extent we might look to unwritten, long accepted conventions. International Law is not a simple carbon copy of criminal law or civil law. Indeed, for many years it wasn’t fully accepted as proper law within academia and the legal profession. However, it is clear that it now exists, at least as a descriptor of what those agreements and conventions are, as well as the means by which those agreements may be enforced and the potential sanctions.
Further, there are complexities so that Badenoch is right to suggest that the legality is not yet certain. I think that she and the Prime Minister are both right to be cautious on this one. That’s why I disagreed with the glibness of Nigel Farage’s response that it was probably illegal but so what. It’s also why I disagree with Ed Davey of the Lib Dems who has been all over social media demanding the PM condemn Trump for obvious breach of international law. As I noted in the previous article, you cannot just breach another nation’s sovereignty by making an address on their territory. However, there are justifiable reasons for military action and so the US may argue that this was a necessary aspect of self-defence. Matters are complicated by the lack of legitimacy of the regime. Who should be recognised as legitimate and had they, defacto given permission for intervention?
Furthermore, I’m concerned by Badenoch’s over distinction between morality and legality. Yes, it is true that there may be laws which are immoral. An obvious example would be the UK’s abortion laws or the legislation currently going through the House of Lords to legalise euthanasia. Further, there are matters of morality that are not covered by the Law. Christians distinguish between sin and criminal acts, for example in the case of adultery and of sex outside of marriage. However, we should not over separate the two. Law is in effect an attempt to define, describe and enforce moral behaviour where it is considered to be in the public interest to enforce it. Therefore, to break international law, such as by disregarding another nation’s sovereignty is a matter of morality as well as legality.
We recognise this point when we insist that citizens cannot take the law into their own hands and act as vigilantes. This is to privatise morality and to pick and choose for our selves what our ethical code will be.
The implications of this are significant. We have seen an obvious example of the inherent dangers with such an approach to international law with Donald Trump’s continued sabre rattling towards Greenland. There may be a moral case for the US to be able to have greater access to Greenland for defensive military purposes. Maybe, even a moral case could be found for Greenland not only to become independent from Denmark but to consider joining the United States. I guess any nation could make such a decision at anytime, just as arguably they could choose to join the EU as a state in their own right, to remain part of the kingdom of Denmark or even to align with the United Kingdom. My personal view is that the better option would be for a stronger NATO presence, including the US in Greenland. Indeed, perhaps increasing the NATO presence might act as a deterrent to US incursions. However, the point remains that the US taking military action or threatening it to manipulate Greenland would be an incursion against sovereignty. It’s a legal matter and a moral matter. As I’ve argued in the past, the problem is that if the US act as though it is simply enough to be a regional strongman, doing what they consider right and in their interests, regardless of international law then this undermines the case from the West against Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Further, it risks emboldening other countries to disregard international law in pursuit of what they believe to be right and in their interests. That might include Argentina acting on their belief that they have a moral claim to the Falklands, China to Taiwan or Spain to Gibraltar.
Faithroots 