By beheading Venezuela's leadership in a grand military coup and then announcing his intention to take control of the country, has Donald Trump dealt the final blow to international law? This is what political analyst Isabelle Lasser asks in an article for the French daily Le Figaro.
No one, except perhaps Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, will feel sorry for Nicolás Maduro, the dictator who plunged his country into chaos, stole his re-election in 2024, destabilized the American continent, is under investigation by the UN for crimes against humanity and is deeply hated by Venezuelans. Some, like Volodymyr Zelensky, have even suggested that his neutralization could serve as an example for Vladimir Putin...
The fact that the Kremlin leader has lost his main ally in Latin America, after having to mourn the loss of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, cannot be considered bad news either. Nor is the prospect of the Venezuelan opposition regaining its stolen power and, in the most optimistic scenario, restoring freedom to the local population bad news.
But the American military operation, as bold as it is successful, falls outside the framework of international law, as it violates the Charter of the United Nations.
Even in 2003, when he invaded Iraq, George W. Bush sought the green light of the Security Council. Trump circumvented this in the case of Venezuela, just as he circumvented the authorization of the US Congress. A distant descendant of the Monroe Doctrine, renamed by Donald Trump as the "Donro Doctrine", the new American regional policy, which aims to expel forces that do not serve US interests in Latin America, legitimizes both regime change by force and the return of imperial spheres of influence.
The consequences of the Venezuelan operation will reverberate throughout the region and the world for a long time. First of all, in Venezuela, because the military success of the operation does not necessarily guarantee its political success. Numerous examples from recent history, in particular those from Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, remind us that regime change rarely leads to democracy and peace, but more often to chaos and civil war. Then in the region, because Donald Trump, emboldened by his success, has promised to do it again: "We must do it again. We can do it again. No one can stop us."
The new national defense strategy, published in December, prioritizes control of the Western Hemisphere. Will Venezuela serve as a precedent for overthrowing regimes on the continent that the White House does not like? Who will be next on the list? Cuba, one of the main losers in this operation, due to the energy ties between Caracas and Havana? The Sandinista regime in Nicaragua? Mexico and Colombia, mentioned by Trump? Or the countries to which he has already laid claims: Canada, Panama and especially Greenland.
As in Latin America, Donald Trump wants to counter Russian and Chinese influence there, while simultaneously exploiting the country's mineral wealth. Unless, of course, Pandora's box is opened and American planes are sent back into the skies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, attacking its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Russia and China have heeded the warning: the American president can use military force whenever he deems necessary.
Their dictator friends have also understood that the protection of Moscow or Beijing will no longer save them. On the other hand, the operation against Maduro paves the way for Beijing and Moscow to repeat the example set by the leading world power, especially a great democracy, at least until Donald Trump is re-elected.
This is the return of empires and imperial policies. The American president wants to turn Latin America back into the United States' backyard. Vladimir Putin wants to regain control of the former Soviet sphere of influence, including by force, as in Ukraine. Xi Jinping wants to "unite" by force with Taiwan.
"If the United States claims the right to use military force to invade a country and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal behavior, what is to prevent China from doing the same to the leaders of Taiwan? ... Once the line is crossed, the rules that limit global chaos begin to break down, and autocratic regimes will be the first to benefit," warns Democrat Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. How then can we confront Vladimir Putin if he commits a similar act in the Baltic states or Moldova?
While it is shocking that American democracy disregards international law, it has already been largely destroyed by autocracies and dictatorships.
Notably by Putin’s Russia, which has been trying to absorb its neighbors since 2008 and in February 2022 attempted regime change in Kiev by capturing – at best – Volodymyr Zelensky. But also by China, which has killed democracy and civil society in Hong Kong despite signed agreements and is moving its warships closer to its next target – Taiwan.
Some believe that the Russian invasions were carried out with the passive and indirect complicity of Europeans who were unable or unwilling to stop Putin, first in Georgia and then in Ukraine. "International law is a flexible concept for Europeans. You criticize Trump because he overthrew a dictator in Caracas. But you leave Putin in power, even though his crimes are far more serious than Maduro's," a former Ukrainian official criticized.
In its rhetoric and actions, Europe has clung to international law like a hook to a cliff, failing to see that the post-Cold War world is finally dead, that force has regained its dominance globally, and that the law can only be respected if it is backed by a reliable balance of power.
"Morality or law without force does not work; we see this every day in Ukraine. If you refuse any intervention on principle, you support the authoritarian status quo. And which is better? To ignore the rules and achieve justice, or to respect the laws and perpetuate injustice and dictatorship?", the former Ukrainian official continued. A complex question indeed...
In a world once again ruled by force, Europeans are trying to defend their values as powerless spectators, unable to arm themselves with the necessary means to enforce them, hiding behind crumbling international institutions.
"To be content with being the last to defend and respect the UN Charter undoubtedly means being consistent with our history and faithful to our doctrine. But above all, it means being completely erased from history. If they want to continue to hope that the law will triumph again, democracies must return to the path of force," warns former French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal.
Because if force without justice leads to arbitrariness and dictatorship, justice without force is powerless and doomed...