The world woke up Saturday morning to the news that the U.S. had conducted a military operation in Venezuela and captured its president.
While the move by the Trump administration marked a “violation” of international law, experts say, the statements issued by many world leaders appear cautious in tone — and are likely an example of how some are trying to bridge the realities of dealing with “a volatile White House.”
For many U.S. allies, how they respond to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife on narco-terrorism charges may come down to not wanting to anger the U.S. administration, Diez said.
“They’re dealing with a volatile White House,” he said.
“If you say the wrong thing, there’s going to be pushback. I think everything has been very much calibrated in light of the negotiations taking place on trade,” Diez said, referring to the ongoing negotiations on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA) that is up for review this year.
Luis van Isschot, 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 of Venezuelan sovereignty.”
“The abduction of Nicolas Maduro and his wife is a violation of international law, and that is not something that I have heard clearly stated yet from Canada or other countries that are close to the United States,” he said.
Article 2 of the UN Charter, to which both the U.S. and Venezuela are signatories, prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
The U.S. military actions set a “dangerous precedent,” UN Secretary General António Guterres said in a statement.
“He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” a spokesperson for Guterres said.
However, allies of the U.S. have not spoken out in such terms.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
Canada’s official statement does not specifically mention the United States, with Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand calling on “all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law.”
U.K. Prime Minister Kier Starmer, for example, refused to answer in an interview whether he thought U.S. actions were a violation of international rights.
In a statement posted to social media, French President Emmanuel Macron decried the Chavista regime in Venezuela but made no reference to the U.S. or the alleged violation of international legal principles.
The cautious responses are likely a reflection of the fact that “the world is more unpredictable and uncertain following the USA’s unilateral military action,” said Arif Z. Lalani, a distinguished fellow at both the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.
In detailing U.S. military action on Saturday, Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine, a maxim that has shaped American foreign policy for two centuries.
The doctrine formulated by former U.S. president James Monroe was originally aimed at opposing European meddling in the Western Hemisphere. It has since been invoked repeatedly by subsequent presidents angling to justify U.S. intervention in the region.
“It’s ‘might make right,’ essentially,” Diez said.
The 1823 doctrine was used heavily during the Cold War and Trump invoked it again on Saturday, even calling it the ‘Donroe doctrine’ — a play on his own name.
The very next day after he announced the military action in Venezuela, Trump renewed his threats of annexing Greenland.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump said.
Saturday’s actions and Trump’s emboldened 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 order, for sure,” he said.
“This is a very serious threat and it’s 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 cause for concern generally as the Trump administration continues to challenge the fundamental basis of our economic and security relationship. The administration is unpredictable and unreliable — it tends to repudiate agreements it has signed,” Lalani said.
Saturday’s developments are a return to the 19th-century-style great power rivalries, when a handful of world powers divided up the world into zones of influence.
“The reaction of Trump to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was one of the first steps there. There was no denunciation of the invasion. There’s talk about actually conceding land to a murderous dictator (Russian President Vladimir Putin),” Diez said.
The most immediate threat from Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, however, is being felt in Latin America, van Isschot said.
“I would be less surprised if they moved against Cuba. It’s been tried before by both Republican and Democratic administrations. The idea that you can topple such a strongly rooted regime as the Cuban government by simply removing the president is dangerous and foolhardy. It’s also illegal,” he said.
Both Cuba and Mexico should be especially concerned since Trump has used the claim of acting against drug traffickers, Diez said.
“And then there’s (U.S. Secretary of State Marco) Rubio, who is of Cuban descent, and I’m sure he may want to be seen in history as being the one that ‘liberated’ Cuba,” he added.
Trump has also accused Canada of not stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States. This is despite U.S. data showing a tiny amount of fentanyl is seized at the Canada-U.S. border, amounting to less than one per cent of all fentanyl intercepted by American authorities.
Foreign policy experts say Ottawa should reach out to nations threatened by the United States to co-ordinate a response to the Trump administration’s actions against Venezuela.
— With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press
