‘The White House in flux’: What responses have been developed to the US invasion of Venezuela? – Nationally
The world woke up Saturday morning to the news that the US had launched a military operation in Venezuela and kidnapped its president.
While the Trump administration’s move marked a “violation” of international law, experts say, the statements issued by many world leaders appear cautious in tone — and may be an example of how some are trying to cover up the facts of dealing with a “volatile White House.”
“[American] “Domestic law takes precedence over international law (in the US),” said Jordi Diez, a political science professor at the University of Guelph.
For many of America’s allies, their reaction to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife on narco-terrorism charges may seem like they don’t want to upset the American administration, Diez said.
“They’re dealing with a volatile White House,” he said.
“If you say the wrong thing, there will be a backlash. I think everything is very balanced because of the negotiations that are happening in trade,” said Diez, referring to the ongoing Canada-US-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA) negotiations that are due to be revised this year.
Luis van Isschot, an associate professor of history at the University of Toronto, said the US seizure “is a bold step, and a bold violation of international law, and the sovereignty of Venezuela.”
“The kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro and his wife is a violation of international law, and that is not something I have heard clearly stated in Canada or other countries close to the United States,” he said.
Article 2 of the UN Charter, to which the US and Venezuela are signatories, prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country.”
The US military’s actions set a “dangerous precedent,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement.
“He is very concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” Guterres’ spokesman said.
However, the US allies did not talk about these terms.
Get the latest country news
For news that affects Canada and the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you as they happen.
Canada’s official statement did not directly mention the United States, with Foreign Minister Anita Ananda asking “all parties to exercise restraint and respect international law.”
UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer, for example, refused to say in an interview that he thought US actions were a violation of international rights.
In a statement posted on social media, French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the Chavista regime in Venezuela but did not refer to the US or violations of international law.
The subtle responses are likely indicative of the fact that “the world is unpredictable and uncertain following a unilateral US military action,” said Arif Z. Lalani, distinguished fellow at both the Center for International Governance Innovation and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.
Elaborating on the actions of the American military on Saturday, Trump spoke about the Monroe Doctrine, which is a principle that has shaped American foreign policy for two centuries.
The doctrine established by former US president James Monroe was originally intended to oppose European interference in the Western Hemisphere. It has since been invoked repeatedly by successive presidents who sought to justify US intervention in the region.
“It might be ‘fixed,’ actually,” Diez said.
The 1823 doctrine was widely used during the Cold War and Trump reiterated it on Saturday, even calling it the ‘Donroe doctrine’ – a play on his name.
The day after announcing military action in Venezuela, Trump renewed his threats to take over Greenland.
“We need Greenland from a national security perspective, and Denmark can’t do it,” Trump said.
Saturday’s actions and Trump’s toughened stance should send alarm bells ringing in Ottawa, Diez said.
“I think he’s serious about his vision of America in a new world. I think he’s serious about a new plan, for sure,” he said.
“This is a serious threat and a threat to (Canada) it shows that he is willing to do anything to get what he wants,” he said.
“Canada has great reason to worry in general as the Trump administration continues to challenge the fundamental basis of our economic and security relations. The administration is unpredictable and unreliable – it often denies the agreements it has signed,” said Lalani.
Saturday’s events are a throwback to the great conflicts of the 19th century, when a number of world powers divided the world into spheres of influence.
“The way Trump reacted to Russia’s attack on Ukraine was one of the first steps there. There was no condemnation of the attack. There is talk about giving the world a murderous dictator (Russian President Vladimir Putin),” said Diez.
The immediate threat from Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, however, is being felt in Latin America, van Isschot said.
“I will not be surprised if they attack Cuba. It has been tried before by both the Republican and Democratic Alliance states. The idea that you can overthrow a regime with strong roots like the Cuban government by simply removing the president is dangerous and illegal. It is also illegal,” he said.
Cuba and Mexico should be especially concerned since Trump has used the claim to fight drug traffickers, Diez said.
“And there is (US Secretary of State Marco) Rubio, who is of Cuban origin, and I’m sure he may want to be seen in history as the one who ‘liberated’ Cuba,” he added.
Trump also blamed Canada for not stopping the flow of fentanyl to the United States. This is despite US data showing a small amount of fentanyl seized at the Canada-US border, estimated at less than one percent of all fentanyl seized by US authorities.
Foreign policy experts say Ottawa should contact nations threatened by the United States to coordinate a response to Trump’s actions against Venezuela.
– With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press
