From the blitz in Venezuela to the Panama and Libya cases: when powers act outside of international law in the name of their own interests
The blitz with which Donald Trump arrested the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, at the beginning of January was the subject of much criticism and among the main arguments used to contest the American operation is the violation of international law. What right does the United States have, many have asked, to intervene militarily in another country, kidnap its leader and establish a new government? All this, the censors of the US administration object, does not mean defending Maduro, who was and remains a dictator, but the prerogatives of a sovereign state. Venezuela was not at war with America and therefore the intervention of the Delta Force military is illegal.
Obviously the question has some foundation, however those who contest Absolute resolve (this is the name that the high command gave to the mission) forget that the United States, like other countries, have often ignored international law in the past, acting with force when it was convenient. I am not talking about the operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, which were more or less consequent reactions to acts of terrorism or threats of aggression. I think of the invasion of Panama, which the American marines carried out just before Christmas 1989. At the time, George Bush senior was in the White House who, as head of the CIA, had long collaborated with the general who commanded Panama, but this did not prevent him from sending 27,000 soldiers who occupied the main hubs of the country and arrested Manuel Noriega, the dictator. In the operation, which was called Just cause, hundreds of people died and even in that case the motivation used to “legitimize” the invasion were the general’s links with the drug cartels, but perhaps also the alliances made with the Soviet bloc and with Cuba and Nicaragua, that is, with that part of the world which for the USA represented the Evil Empire. Did the invasion of a sovereign country comply with the rules of international law? No. And the arrest with deportation and trial in America of the leader of Panama? That too was therefore an illegitimate operation. But in the end, except for some official protests, essentially nothing happened. A bit like what is happening with Venezuela: many declarations, no sanctions. Because international law is insurmountable when dealing with enemies and, above all, with weak states, but it can be circumvented if friends are involved and, above all, some power that cannot be condemned except in words.
After all, some are surprised by the Caracas blitz, but forget Odyssey dawn, the name of the operation with which Nicolas Sarkozy, at the helm of France, sent French jets to destroy the Libyan tanks. It was March 19, 2011 and the so-called Arab Spring was spreading in the African countries bordering the Mediterranean. In practice, the population rebelled against the tyrants, or at least that’s what it seemed like after Ben Ali’s escape from Tunis. In Libya the rebels dreamed of overthrowing the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, who was ready to bloodily repress the revolution. But Sarkozy’s hands, apparently, were itching: either because he wanted to eliminate those who had financed his election campaign to become president of the République, or because of the oil interests that the French were cultivating in the country. The fact is that the Paris fighters struck even before there was the green light from the international Coalition. In practice, the Elysée dragged the United States and Great Britain into war, also forcing Italy to support the operation. Was the intervention legitimate? I think there are many doubts and the first to have them is Barack Obama, who also authorized the bombings at the time. A regime was attacked to replace it with another regime. In what capacity? And how far can an alliance of willing self-appointed defenders of certain principles go?
The series of military interventions, officially launched in defense of democracy and liberal values, is long. But there is almost always something else behind the reasons used to justify the bombings. We talk about drugs, terrorism, human rights, but the reasons are less noble than they are described. Sometimes there is oil, sometimes other raw materials. In all cases, there is always the national interest of those who pose as policemen of the world and of democracy. And it comes before international law.
