Expert Rejects Trump Rationale for Potential Venezuela Military Action

US President Donald Trump’s administration has taken military action in Venezuela, removing President Nicolas Maduro from power. The US government claims that Maduro was “captured” after strikes on Caracas for allegedly carrying out a campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States.

The US President stated that the country would be run by the US during a transition period and promised improved conditions for Venezuelans. However, Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, has disputed this claim, stating that the action violates international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.

Finkelstein described the attacks as an “illegal use of force” and a violation of Maduro’s personal rights. She cited the UN Charter, which prohibits states from attacking another country without provocation. The US actions came after months of pressure on Maduro, whom the Trump administration accused of being linked to drug traffickers without evidence.

The US government had previously carried out strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and seized vessels carrying oil off the Venezuelan coast. Sanctions were also imposed on members of Maduro’s family. The Democratic Party lawmakers have questioned the Trump administration’s actions, stating that they violate both US and international law.

Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that there was no imminent threat to the United States from Venezuela that would justify military action without congressional authorization. He echoed Finkelstein’s concerns about the lack of self-defence justification for bypassing Congress.

Source: Al Jazeera