When the Law and Diplomacy give way to hegemonic power

After World War II, the hegemonic powers declared that law and diplomacy should prevail over force in resolving disputes and governing relations among states. Yet, before the ink dried, these powers started to reverse their commitments. It does not mean, though, that international law was not breached in the military action and subsequent kidnapping of Venezuela’s president. This article briefly explains how.

The intervention that led to the capture and prosecution of Nicolás Maduro in the United States violated both domestic and international law.

Under the UN Charter, the use of force against another country is prohibited except in two cases: self-defence or authorisation by the Security Council. Neither applies here. Venezuela did not attack the United States, nor was it about to.

International law also prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of another state, particularly in determining who governs it (Article 2(7), UN Charter). Kidnapping a foreign leader without legal procedure constitutes an illegal deprivation of liberty (Article 9). It also raises questions of immunity, since heads of state, even if deemed illegitimate, are generally protected from prosecution in foreign courts.

The legitimacy of a foreign leader cannot be decided by political opinion, as the US, UK and France have attempted, but must be a legal determination. One may hold views on Maduro’s governance, but such opinions do not justify intervention or abduction when measured against the law.

One must also be careful not to conflate personal views with the images seen of celebrations and media narratives, for until the lion can write its own history, the prey will always be subject to it. Put another way, it is important to understand that American and other media would not demonstrate the “legitimate” support of Maduro because it would not provide the necessary cover for the invasion. If he were portrayed as legitimate and popular, then the world would be even more enraged at the intervention.

American and allied media have long portrayed Venezuela as a narco‑trafficking hub, often without evidence. It will be telling whether reports now highlight reductions in trafficking following Maduro’s removal as the alleged “kingpin”.

If only that were how social and economic issues appear and are resolved. Moreover, international human rights law requires that individuals accused of crimes be arrested and tried locally, with due process and a fair trial. These protections are not designed to shield “criminals” but to limit arbitrary power and conjecture.

The scepticism toward law is worrying and problematic.

What occurred last week reflects the unchecked discretion of a world leader, justified by doctrines such as Monroe, fears of communism, regime change, the imposition of Western  liberal democracy, and, most significantly, the raping of oil resources.

Such precedents, once set, are difficult to reverse – when a world leader with military resources is of the opinion that another country should not be governed in the manner it is, irrespective of personal and national convictions, that they can intervene and run tings.

If force can be rationalised against Maduro as a “dictator”, what prevents similar rationalisations against leaders of Canada, Colombia, Denmark, or Cuba?

Dismissing such concerns with “That will not happen” and “We will cross that bridge when we get there,”  is intellectually weak. It is precisely the logic Russia and China have utilised in Ukraine and Taiwan: the strongest deciding at whim which sovereign states are “ripe” for intervention.

Equally troubling is the resignation among many in the Caribbean, who acknowledge not the illegality but only “how we must adjust”. This echoes the rationalisations once offered for apartheid and enslavement.

Hegemonic victors are quite satisfied and enthralled when the oppressed accept that inequality, war and militarism are commonplace rather than man‑made and reversible.

What they have done is create an accepted lexicon and philosophy that empire, hegemony and control are innate within the consciousness of the(ir) people, and they untruthfully and without an empirical basis, approximate all views through electoral victories as blanket endorsements of all actions, legal or not.

Yet voters rarely endorse every aspect of a party’s manifesto. Indeed, the US President himself once promised to reduce America’s interventionism abroad.

History reminds us of the ideal, which should never be forgotten: a world free from war, respectful of  sovereignty, and governed by law rather than might.

The absence of a “dictator” does not immediately translate to democracy. As CLR James observed, democracy is a culture that must be nurtured.

The United States has no legal authority to “run” Venezuela. Past interventions, such as in Iraq, have left countries destabilised and unable to meet basic needs.

Of course, the common rhetoric is, “But they are better than before,” when the question should be whether levers other than military force could have been used.

An additional question is whether moral bankruptcy should be called out and whether the empire is being selective in pursuing democracy, as seen in disproportionate support for Israel after October 1.

Prime Minister Mia Mottley reminds us: “In a world that strives for peace, the time for dialogue should never be over.” What is needed now is a return to law, not hegemony and power.