Trump’s coup in Venezuela didn’t just break the rules – it showed there aren’t any. We’ll all regret that | Nesrine Malik

I I never thought it possible that one could, when thinking about the war in Iraq and the foreign invasions of the “war on terror” in general, feel a certain nostalgia. At a time when there were at least concerted attempts to justify unilateral interventions and illegal wars in the name of global security, or even a moral duty to free the women of Afghanistan or “liberate the Iraqi people”.

Today, with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro essentially removed and Venezuela taken over by the United States, no effort is being made to frame the coup in any reasoning other than American interests. Nor are there any attempts to seek consent from national or international legislative bodies and their allies, let alone the public. The days when the United States tried to convince the world that Saddam Hussein did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction, despite the secret absence of reliable intelligence, were actually the good old days.

Maduro “did some research and found out,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. “America can project its will anywhere and at any time. » The United States will now “run Venezuela,” President Donald Trump said. “We are going to be present in Venezuela in the oil sector.” There is little or no effort to make the case for redemption coherent. Maduro is allegedly guilty of “narcoterrorism” and other charges, including “conspiracy to possess machine guns.” [sic] and destructive devices against the United States” – charges that not only do not pass the barriers required for invasion and kidnapping, but are apparently not even taken seriously by Trump himself. Others accused of drug offenses have been pardoned. Among them are former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández and Ross Ulbricht and Larry Hoover, both freed from life in prison for convictions including drug trafficking.

The problem, as demonstrated by triumphalist social media posts that include montages of hip-hop soundtracks and portraying Trump as a kind of gangster-in-chief, lies in the very rejection of the idea that American actions are subject to due process. The coup in Venezuela is not a demonstration of the long arm of the law, but of the fact that the United States East the law and is subject to no higher law, capable of wielding its extraordinary power and lethality in the dead of night, killing dozens of innocent people and facing no consequences, much less censure.

And the response so far has proven that to be correct. These extraordinary scenes, actions and statements have already passed into the realm of normal through the kind of bland, hidden statements to which we have become accustomed. Several politicians and heads of state have indulged in weak and contradictory statements as they do when their brand of diplomacy clashes with the reality that their allies are crazy. Keir Starmer says the situation is “evolving rapidly” and he will “establish all the facts”, just as the facts take Maduro on a crime walk in Brooklyn. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is “following the situation in Venezuela very closely… any solution must respect international law and the United Nations Charter.” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reassures us she is “monitoring the situation closely”, as is the Australian government and others.

Which will remind you more and more frequently, once there are no more facts to establish or real situations to monitor, is that Maduro was a very bad man. Even if the importance of international law is proclaimed, this will be done at the same time as Maduro’s conviction. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, still in the lead, is leading the charge with this platonic ideal. First point, she tweeted on Saturday: “The UK has consistently rejected the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro and called for a peaceful transition of power in Venezuela. Secondly, she added: “As the Prime Minister has made clear, we support international law. Our collective goal must now be to achieve a bloodless transition to democratic government.” Note that there is no acknowledgment that international law has already been violated, or by whom – only that it is supported, but apparently in no way by which it can actually be respected.

The result is that we are starting a year in which the die is cast. The Venezuelan incident will destroy what little remains of the presumption that there is any will to defend the norms that underpin global security – that sense that there will be consequences, material or social, that will deter land grabs, annexations or regime changes. The world is already ripe for such a moment. The Middle East is a hot spot, becoming a competition between emerging Gulf states, and further disrupted by an unfettered United States and Israel. We see it in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. It’s now just a blip on the news map, but Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two powerful and close allies with increasingly ambitious regional agendas, are clashing over Yemen and which parties to the conflict they each support. The escalation of rhetoric and military action — Saudi Arabia struck a shipment of combat vehicles from the United Arab Emirates bound for Yemen and accused the country of endangering its national security — opens an unprecedented front in the Gulf.

Such chaos has already been enabled by the UAE’s dubious new imperial role in the region and beyond in Sudan’s cruel war, and this country joins the club of nations that face no repercussions. Across the Gulf, protests in Iran are in their second week and have already piqued the interest of Trump, who has threatened further strikes, raising the prospect of US-led regime change from the improbable. Just like Trump’s threat of annexation of Greenland.

Other improbabilities become possibilities. China carries out military exercises around Taiwan. Vladimir Putin needs no encouragement, but the Trumpian doctrine of imperial dominance and the discretionary right to launch military campaigns now mirrors Putin’s and gives even more validity to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. After Venezuela, you would be crazy, if you were a regime with a certain financial and military power and regional ambition, not to at least test the waters.

The lukewarm reaction of those who still feel the need to reaffirm their support for international law only contributes to this state of encouraged predation. The situation in Venezuela cannot be contained by a peaceful transition (which is unlikely based on all of recent history). Just like Gaza could not be contained. One might argue that it is wise not to anger Trump – even by declaring the truth of his actions – and wonder what a country like the UK could do anyway. But resisting breaking the rules and insisting on following them, although certainly in vain, is how norms are established and then maintained. To hide and hope that this too will pass is cowardice, denial and historical illiteracy.

The consequences will be felt more and more, and not only by the unfortunate people in distant regions. The barriers, both practical and theoretical, that maintained a settlement – ​​fragile and imperfect, but a settlement nonetheless – are being dismantled. Silence is not safety. It is, to use the language of the day and channel the jubilant Hegseth, “to take a walk” and “to find out soon”.