“An Unstable White House”: What Shaped Responses to the US Attack in Venezuela? – National

The world woke up Saturday morning to the news that the United States had carried out a military operation in Venezuela and captured its president.

Even though the Trump administration’s decision constitutes a “violation” of international law, experts say, the statements released by many world leaders appear cautious in tone — and are likely an example of how some are trying to bridge the realities of running an “unstable White House.”

“[American] domestic law takes precedence over international law (in the U.S. justification),” said Jordi Diez, a political science professor at the University of Guelph.

For many U.S. allies, how they respond to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife on narcoterrorism charges could come down to not wanting to anger the U.S. administration, Diez said.

“They are dealing with an unstable White House,” he said.

“If you say the wrong thing, there will be reactions. I think everything has been very calibrated in light of the current trade negotiations,” Diez said, referring to the ongoing negotiations on the Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA), which is due to be revised this year.

Luis van Isschot, an associate professor of history at the University of Toronto, said the U.S. capture is “a particularly bold move and a particularly bold violation of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.”

“The kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro and his wife constitutes a violation of international law, and it is not something I have yet heard clearly from Canada or other countries close to the United States,” he said.

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States and Venezuela are signatories, prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

US military actions set a “dangerous precedent,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement.

“He is deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” a Guterres spokesperson said.

However, US allies have not spoken out in these terms.

Canada’s official statement did not specifically mention the United States, with Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Ananda calling on “all parties to exercise restraint and respect international law.”

British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, for example, refused to answer in an interview whether he believed U.S. actions constituted a violation of international rights.

In a statement posted on social networksFrench President Emmanuel Macron denounced the Chavista regime in Venezuela but made no reference to the United States or the alleged violation of international legal principles.

These cautious responses likely reflect the fact that “the world is more unpredictable and uncertain as a result of unilateral U.S. military action,” said Arif Z. Lalani, a distinguished scholar at the Center for International Governance Innovation and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

In detailing U.S. military action Saturday, Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine, a maxim that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for two centuries.

The doctrine formulated by former US President James Monroe was originally intended to oppose European interference in the Western Hemisphere. Since then, it has been invoked repeatedly by subsequent presidents, seeking to justify U.S. intervention in the region.

“It’s basically ‘could make this better,'” Diez said.

The 1823 doctrine was widely used during the Cold War and Trump invoked it again on Saturday, even calling it the “Donroe Doctrine” – a pun on his own name.

Current trend

• Ukraine Zelensky appoints Chrystia Freeland as his economic advisor

• Greenland PM says ‘enough’ after Trump renews annexation threats

The day after the announcement of military action in Venezuela, Trump renewed his threats of annexation of Greenland.

“We need Greenland from a national security standpoint, and Denmark is not going to be able to do that,” Trump said.

Saturday’s actions and Trump’s bold stance should ring alarm bells 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 order, that’s for sure,” he said.

“It’s a very serious threat and an existential threat (to Canada). It just shows that he’s willing to do anything to get what he wants,” he said.

“Canada has great reason for general concern as the Trump administration continues to challenge the fundamental foundations of our economic and security relations. The administration is unpredictable and unreliable – it has a tendency to repudiate agreements it has signed,” Lalani said.

Saturday’s developments are a throwback to the great power rivalries of the 19th century, when a handful of world powers divided the world into zones of influence.

“Trump’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was one of the first steps. There has been no denunciation of the invasion. There is even talk of granting land to a murderous dictator (Russian President Vladimir Putin),” Diez said.

However, the most immediate threat from Trump’s expansionist rhetoric is felt in Latin America, van Isschot said.

“I would be less surprised if they took action against Cuba. This has been attempted before by Republican and Democratic administrations. The idea that you can overthrow a regime as entrenched as the Cuban government by simply removing the president is dangerous and reckless. It is also illegal,” he said.

Cuba and Mexico should be particularly concerned since Trump claimed to take action against drug traffickers, Diez said.

“And then there is (US Secretary of State Marco) Rubio, who is of Cuban origin, and I’m sure he would like to be remembered in history as the one who ‘liberated’ Cuba,” he added.

Trump also accused Canada of failing to stop the flow of fentanyl to the United States. This is despite U.S. data showing that a tiny amount of fentanyl is seized at the Canada-U.S. border, representing less than 1 percent of all fentanyl intercepted by U.S. authorities.

Foreign policy experts say Ottawa should reach out to countries threatened by the United States to coordinate a response to the Trump administration’s actions against Venezuela.

— With files from The Canadian Press and the Associated Press