The Myth of Narco-Terrorism and Inflated Threats
It seems that the US
administration has attempted to inflate the threat posed by Venezuela, by
framing the accused drug smugglers as combatants, labelling them
“narco-terrorists” to imply that the drug smugglers are engaged in terrorism. However,
such labelling would not have any legal
consequence, nor would it justify the use of lethal force.
The narrative of Venezuela as a
major supplier of drugs into US doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. As noted
by PolitiFact, the majority of illicit drugs entering the US come from
Mexico through the southern land-border (an official point of entry), mostly by
US citizens. The New York Times reported
that only 8% of smuggled drugs come from Venezuela and that no fentanyl is
produced or smuggled from there.
What is more concerning are the military
tactics employed by the US. Notably, the use of a ‘double-tap’
airstrike (a delayed second strike on the same target) on a Venezuelan
boat, allegedly carrying illegal drugs. The boat in question was completely
incapacitated in the first strike, killing nine, with two remaining survivors
floating on debris. The second strike killed the two survivors. According to
the Washington
Post, a source witnessed that a directive had come from
Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, essentially stating that “the order was to kill
everybody.”
As Venezuela is a member of the
International Criminal Court (ICC), Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth could
face arrest warrants and be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The
ICC’s first prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, has argued that the
strikes constitute crimes against humanity, as they could be deemed as planned,
systematic attacks on civilians. The strikes upon seven locations in Caracas that
resulted in the deaths of Venezuelan civilians and concluded with the forcible
removal of the sitting president will only add credence to such a case.
Muted Condemnation from the West
Despite the concerns and
condemnation from leading experts in international law, the governments of the
West have been quite restrained with their responses to the United States’
actions. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese exemplified
this message by carefully avoiding condemnation of the US while encouraging
“dialogue and diplomacy”, “support for international law” and hoping for a
“peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela” despite their president being removed
from office by gunpoint. The majority of Europe has expressed
similar platitudes, with Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez being a notable
exception, stating that the intervention "violates international
law."
If we compare US actions in the Caribbean with China's in the South China Sea, we
can see some stark differences.
From the Caribbean to the South China Sea: A Tale of Double Standards
Historically, the US has been
quite vocal in its criticisms of China in the South China Sea. President Obama suggested
that China was intimidating Vietnam and the Philippines and insisted, “You've
got to abide by international law”. Biden demanded
that China “cease its provocative behaviour, and take steps to reassure the
international community that it is committed to the rules-based maritime order”
in the context of “abiding by its obligations to international law”. The Trump
administration’s first and second terms have been quite vocal in characterising
China’s behaviour in the South China Sea as illegal. Most recently, US
Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned
China’s “dangerous and destabilising actions in the South China Sea,” arguing
that China’s behaviour “undermines regional peace and stability and is inconsistent
with international law”.
A detailed
report from the Australia Institute has outlined how China has indeed
become more assertive in the South China Sea since the rise of President Xi, while
acknowledging China has left room for diplomacy with other state claimants. The
report describes this as a “history of escalation and détente”.
The report notes that, of late,
China has been more conciliatory towards rival claimants through bilateral
relations, including:
Malaysia and China in 2024 agreeing
that the South China Sea needs “pragmatic cooperation”.
A joint
maritime project near the Natuna Islands with Indonesia, despite criticism
within Indonesia.
Vietnam has maintained a complex relationship with China, but has
also participated in joint
patrols in the Gulf of Tonkin.
A shared oil and gas exploration project
in the South China Sea with the Kingdom of Brunei.
The Philippines is a notable
exception. There has been a marked increase in activity or “naval interactions”
between the Philippines and China over the South China Sea. The Asia Maritime
Transparency Initiative (AMTI) recorded
121 days of interactions between the two navies over a ten-month period (August
2024 – May 2025). Despite the rise in tensions between China and the
Philippines, it should be noted that there remains controlled restraint – there
have been no skirmishes, strikes, or any signs of an escalation between the two.
Even after two Chinese vessels collided
while pursuing a Filipino boat, we have not witnessed an escalation between the
two states. We are unlikely to see a full-blown military assault anytime soon.
And this is where we see the
fundamental difference between the actions of China and the United States.
China is navigating the complicated waters of maritime territorial boundaries
with multiple claimants in a variety of forms – mainly through bilateral
diplomacy and military deterrence. This process has been well-trodden ground
for inter-state relations. Despite the use of an ongoing military presence and
ventures into disputed territories, the risk of escalation is relatively low.
China is essentially using its military as leverage to pursue its national
interest of territorial security. Treating the South China Sea and Taiwan as
Chinese territory is an ongoing policy that has not diverged for decades. There
may indeed be tensions, and international law will be tested, but the most
likely outcome will be negotiated rather than settled through conflict.
Yet, if a conflict did unfold,
the bar to justify such a venture has now become so much lower. President Trump
has set a dangerous precedent that can be used by other states to justify a
military intervention in a rival state. The US has so far presented very little
evidence to prosecute its case against Maduro, carried out legally questionable
strikes against non-military boats, and within the space of months, was able to
forcibly depose a sitting president. The US no longer appears to be the “world’s
policeman”, and the “exceptionalism” badge is increasingly being contested. The
administration has effectively created a new model for removing opponents. Other
military powers will be taking notes.
The Future of International Law
The United States and the West in
general, including Australia, have spent much time advocating for the
“rules-based order”, where all states must work within the framework of
international laws in order to maintain peace and stability. Such advocacy appears
to be quite shallow, considering the actions of the United States and the
rather muted response from the international community. It also appears hypocritical
over issues like Taiwan.
Recently, Australia and Japan were
quite
vocal in their condemnation of China for carrying out military drills near
Taiwan, an activity that is indeed provocative but quite minimal in comparison
to the US military assault that one international law expert called
“brazen and unlawful”. Such selective concern exposes Australia and other
governments to accusations of being disingenuous in their commitment to
international law. If we want to uphold an authentic rules-based order, then
Australia needs to apply this standard universally. The Venezuelan intervention
is a turning point in history – we need to be on the right side.
