On the surface, abducting a Head of State is a piratical act eschewed by States. A Head of State enjoys absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction, known as ratione personae, at least till the term of office concludes. The International Court of Justice was clear enough about this principle in the 2002 Arrest Warrant Case, holding that high ranked government officials such as a foreign minister are granted immunity under customary international law to enable the effective performance of their functions “on behalf of their respective States.”
That said, international law has been modified on this score by the jurisdiction of theInternational Criminal Court, whose founding Rome Statute stipulates that the official standing of a serving Head of State is no exemption from criminal responsibility. The effectiveness of this principle lies in the cooperation of State parties, something distinctly unforthcoming regarding certain serving leaders. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu springs to mind.)
US domestic law puts all of this to side with the highwayman logic of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. Decided in Ker v Illinois in 1886, the decision overlooks the way, lawful or otherwise, a defendant is apprehended, even if outside the jurisdiction. Once American soil is reached, judicial proceedings can commence without challenge. The US Department of Justice has further attempted to puncture ancient notions of diplomatic immunity by recategorizing (how else?) the standing of a leader – in this case Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro – as nothing more than a narco-terrorist. Maduro was seized, explains US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as part of a law enforcement operation.
In addition to being a violation of the leadership immunity principle, the January 3 kidnapping of Maduro and his wife by US forces was an audacious breach of the sovereignty guarantee under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Operation Absolute Resolve involved 150 aircraft, strikes on military infrastructure including surface-to-air missile and communication systems, and various depots. The security fantasists from the White House to the State Department treated Venezuela as not merely a dangerous narco-state but one hosting undesirable foreign elements, but it has never posed a military threat to the US homeland.
In the face of such unalloyed aggression – a crime against peace, if you will – the response from Washington’s allies has been feeble and worse. This is made all the more grotesque for their claims to purity when it comes to defending Western civilisation against the perceived ogres and bogeymen of international relations: Russia and China.
From the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer could not have been clearer about his contempt for the processes of international law. “The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela,” he declared in his January 3 statement. “We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Having given a coating of legitimacy to the banditry of the Trump administration, he could still claim to “support” international law. His government would “discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.” Certainly, judging from this, the will of President Donald Trump.
An official statement from the European Union released by its high representative, Kaja Kallas, was even more mealy-mouthed: “The EU has repeatedly stated that Nicolás Maduro lacks the legitimacy of a democratically elected president and has advocated for a Venezuelan-led peaceful transition to democracy in the country, respectful of its sovereignty.”
The tactic here involves soiling the subject before paying some false respect for such concepts as democracy and sovereignty. We can do without Maduro, and won’t miss him, but make some modest effort to respect some cardinal virtues when disposing of him. All those involved should show “restraint […] to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution of the crisis.”
The arrogance of this position is underlined by the concession to diplomacy’s importance and the role of dialogue, when there has been no dialogue or diplomacy to speak of. “We are in close contact with the United States, as well as regional and international partners to support and facilitate dialogue with all parties involved, leading to a negotiated, democratic, inclusive and peaceful resolution to the crisis, led by Venezuelans.”
From the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Anita Anand, there was not a whisper of Maduro’s abduction, or the US breach of the UN Charter. The phantom conveniently called the Venezuelan People stood as an alibi for lawbreaking, for they had a “desire to live in a peaceful and democratic society.” And there was the familiar call “on all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law,” marvellous piffle in the face of illegal abductions.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did little to improve upon the weak formula in his shabby statement, similarly skipping over the violations of the UN Charter and Maduro’s abduction. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy in order to secure regional stability and prevent escalation.” A bland acknowledgement of “the need to respect democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms” is made, along with the risible reference to supporting “international law and a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”
Who, then, are these idealised people? Presumably these Venezuelans are the vetted ones, sanitised with the seal of approval, untainted by silly notions of revolution and the poverty reduction measures initially implemented by the government of Hugo Chávez. But if EU officials and other states friendly to Washington thought that a Venezuelan appropriately representative of the People’s Will might be the opposition figure and travesty of a Nobel laureate, María Corina Machado, Trump had other ideas. To date the Maduro loyalist Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, has caught his fickle eye. “I think,” he said with blunt machismo, “it would be very tough for [Machado] to be the leader. She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.” The Venezuelan people’s choice will be, putting democracy and dialogue to one side, the same as Trump’s.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Trump has repeated his threats to steal Greenland.
Two points:
first Greenland and Denmark have denounced the move, but the EU has said nothing, that I have seen, against the USA simply stealing a part of the EU;
second, EU member countries have been arming Ukraine to resist Russia, many would say using Ukraine as a pawn against Russia, or that the US was using both the EU and Ukraine as a pawn against Russia, yet the EU and NATO have nothing to say about the US stealing Greenland.
This is not just Western leaders, including our own, misleading the public on the nature of this attack and kidnapping, but Western media scripting this illegal act as some kind of righteous ‘arrest’ of a felon.
Before the internet the public would have no way of knowing the reality, which partly explains how the USA got away with so much of its illegal activity worldwide, but particularly in South America, in the past.
The accusations of electoral fraud are coming thick and fast now, so it’s worth repeating this from Aug ‘24.
A headline from The Guardian 7th Aug.
“Evidence shows Venezuela’s election was stolen”
The claim of electoral fraud emanates from the US State Dept, which refuses to name its “independent” sources.
It’s assumed that the State Dept referred to a New Jersey-based firm called Edison Research. Edison works closely with US state propaganda outlets and previously did polling in Ukraine, Georgia, and Iraq – areas that, like Venezuela, have been targeted by Washington.
The one source that the US cited in the statement on Venezuela was the Carter Center. The Carter Center said on July 30 that it “cannot verify or corroborate the results of the election declared by the National Electoral Council ”.
But what the State Department did not disclose was that it bankrolls the Carter Center.
What a coincidence.
The State Dept announcement failed to mention exit polls that predicted a win for the government.
And somehow the Guardian’s intrepid South American correspondent who wrote the headline failed to mention the report from the US National Lawyers Guild, who sent monitors to Venezuela and found no evidence of electoral fraud.
Quite the opposite.
The Guild reported that they had “observed a transparent, fair voting process with scrupulous attention to legitimacy, access to the polls, and pluralism”.
I’d be interested in readers’ reaction to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lubxjcar31I
I think the author of the video is spot on Jen, thanks for sharing that.
Relevant and spot on, Jen. America’s hubris, arrogance, & ignorance, sticks in everyone’s craw, always has, always will. Not in dispute that there are good people in that country, many, millions, but the overarching theatre of politics and its military and corporate sidekicks is rotten to the core and a miasma that poisons whatever it contacts.
An outstanding perspective, Binoy.
Fortunately, public opinion in the US as monitored by YouGov opposes President Trump’s actions against Venezuela and its leaders.
Only 19 percent of US respondents want their country to have an administrative role in Venezuela.
There are immense pressures from local and US intel services on the Albanese Government to support President Trump on this issue. The Murdoch press favours the recent capture of President Maduro and Cilia Flores.
After 80 years of supporting the post-1945 foreign policies of US administrations, only Gough Whitlam chose national sovereignty as our banner and his government survived for less than three years.
I take heart from Albo’s cautious mood on this issue. The rules-based order which Australia articulates has no place for international piracy.
Encourage Labor and progressive MPs to stand up for our values and not ask for a return to Whitmanesque values instantaneously.
There are opportunities here for a higher level of national sovereignty in the long-term and widespread scrutiny of US economic diplomacy as enforced by US Trade Representatives in US embassies in middle power states globally and their related intel services.
One does not recall the author addressing or criticising another ICC perp and chum of Netanyahu’s, Putin’s 2nd invasion of Ukraine with attempts to assassinate &/or capture leader Zelensky; seems similar rationale and modus operandi Trump is trying?
Platforming aggressor Putin’s Russia over victim Ukraine; ditto Trump and Netanyahu…..
If you want foreign affairs conducted like Trump’s US via media megaphones like Fox News fine, but that does not mean the EU and constituent nations should too, for low info people’s convenience?
Too many in Australia have very selective ethics on who is an aggressor and a victim, based on sentiments and 20thC agitprop?
Trump used illegal military action to advance his foreign policy objectives
Putin used illegal military action to advance his foreign policy objectives
Only hypocrites try to differentiate
After the fixations, obsessions, biasses, prejudices, deficiencies and inflated assertions here, real or imagined or just nightmared, go back to the Binoy article, reconsider, deflate, rebalance.
While we’re talking of “low-information” comfort zones, AC would do well to read David Tyler’s latest on the role of the media in manufacturing consent, commit the entire article to memory, then consider devoting the rest of his life to self-reflection.
A clear example of complete hypocrisy is trying to figure out some threadbare argument for Putin to ignore international law, while vociferously objecting to Trump’s clear breach of international law
When people pick and choose who they allow to ignore international law (on the basis of personal ideology or just preference) they are giving the green light for all governments, despotic or otherwise, to ignore international law.
Congratulations
Oh dear.
Looks like there’ll be no self-reflection.
Life in the “low-information” comfort zone is just too — well, comfortable.
I cannot but agree with Steve, as I have noticed a tendency for Andrew Smith to indulge in syntactically obscure if not arcane, acronym-laden propositions which require some puzzling out. I am left to conclude I must be very stupid not to instantly grasp his intended meanings – as I can, say, when reading contributions by most other commenters.
Is cryptic the new black for the ‘progressive left’ gentlemen’s club?
It’s a shame if so, as I am most keen to increase my own knowledge base via empirical evidence provided by others in support of their opinions.
Herbert
“I am left to conclude I must be very stupid not to instantly grasp his intended meanings..” you aren’t alone, I have to continually bite my tongue and refrain from saying ‘could I have that in English, please.
I ran around the room ripping the curtains off and singing ‘Rule Britannia’ when I read your earlier comment asking whether it was meant to be abstruse.
Mr Smith could possibly benefit from considering the proposition that good communication is language couched in terms that make it immediately comprehensible to the majority of the listeners or readers.
Information wrapped in cryptic or abstruse syntax benefits nobody, least of all its authors… albeit they may derive satisfaction through the fallacious sense of having expertise on their chosen topic. The takeaway, particularly evident in this case, is that the readership remain unimpressed, and Mr Smith gets relegated to that exclusive club known colloquially as the wanker’s corner. He has an out though… it’s not a permanent stay in the sin bin. All he needs to do is strip his musings and offerings of the dead wood jargon that makes reading him somewhat of a leaden and unprofitable exercise.
I had a colleague, years ago, when I worked in Agribusiness. He was sharp as a tack, knew the science behind plant nutrition, best-practice soil management, disease control, plant architecture and more, and when he began, he would blind the growers with a tonne of science detail. It left them befuddled, frustrated, confused, bewildered. They just wanted answers to their problems, not a science lecture. He learnt, eventually, and very much to his credit, to tone it down to the appropriate level. Mr Smith could take that example and usefully adapt it within these pages.
I have to point out to Steve, that I have read David Tyler’s article. It is about the media’s opaque/inconsistent reporting on current international issues.
I can’t see that it deals with the legality of Putin’s use of the military to enforce his foreign policy objectives.
There is analysis of Trump and others. Not Putin.
So what exactly is your point?
Once again I’ll restate my view, Trump illegally uses the military to pursue his foreign policy objectives.
Putin illegally uses the military to pursue his foreign policy objectives.
Only hypocrites try to make a distinction
Steve is determined to prove my point…
Only hypocrites try to make a distinction
Thanks Binoy, Denis Bright, Steve, and Michael Taylor.
BTW MT, today’s reported US invasion Venezuelan death toll (other than the 100+ ‘fishermen’) is 80 innocent lives.
Jen, thanks for the youtube link. The British Empire collapsed after WWII, the American imperial aspirations are alive and well, not satisfied with being the world’s police force, they see themselves as being so exceptional, they do not need to participate in the International court of justice or any other ‘over-sight’ body, and will protect their veto power in the UN security council…. and rape and pillage where ever they see the opportunity. All because they want the MONEY and the power of being the toughest bully on the globe.