Trump’s illegal invasion of Venezuela

By Jürgen Klute

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is stated in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the 1945 UN Charter.

International law is clear. Not only are attacks against other states prohibited, but also the threat of such attacks. Even if the president – as in the case of Venezuela – is dictatorial and authoritarian, which is ultimately also true of the aggressor itself, the United States. Trump is now also clearly displaying authoritarian and dictatorial traits.

At least superficially, US administrations have so far adhered to the UN Charter. This is by no means the first regime change for which the US is responsible. But it is new for a US president – even without parliamentary backing – to enforce regime change in such a shameless manner and by means of a military attack that violates international law, for which he does not even provide a halfway plausible justification (Bush Senior at least presented the lie that Iraq was producing chemical weapons to maintain appearances). Also new is the openness, or rather arrogance, with which Trump makes it clear that he wants to gain access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are currently the largest known reserves in the world. The fact that Venezuelan President Maduro, whom Trump had kidnapped along with his wife, is criticised for his authoritarian policies and is also alleged to be involved in drug trafficking is a cheap supporting argument for Trump, but by no means the reason for the attack, which violates international law. Trump has no other problems with dictators. Incidentally, the UN Charter does not allow attacks on dictatorially ruled states. The prohibition of aggression is a fundamental principle without exception.

By the way, there is no concrete information in the media about the number of victims – dead and injured – caused by the attack.

Putin and Netanyahu will celebrate Trump’s attack on Venezuela. Because now the President of the United States has lost all moral credibility and, at least in the eyes of Putin and Netanyahu, has effectively suspended international law. This shifts the balance of power among the permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) in such a way that it will hardly be able to act.

For the US, the attack on Venezuela will be a challenge. On the one hand, according to media reports, Trump did not obtain the necessary approval from Congress before the attack. On the other hand, by disregarding the UN Charter, which was also ratified by the US, Trump has made himself a war criminal. This should actually lead to impeachment proceedings and a subsequent trial for Trump, in which he will have to answer for his violations of the law. That will not happen, at least for the time being. This is precisely what will further erode democracy in the US from within.

Reactions in Germany to this attack, which violates international law, are mixed. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who is dripping with servility and subservience towards Trump, finds the attack understandable and does not want to comment clearly on Trump’s breach of law, as his French colleague Manuel Macron has done. Yet Friedrich Merz was trained as a lawyer and should therefore know that the UN Charter prohibits wars of aggression without any ifs or buts.

Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesman for the Union faction in the Bundestag, ignores international law in the same way as the Chancellor. ‘Maduro has been oppressing civil society in Venezuela for many years and spreading terror and drugs in the region,’ he told the RND.
‘The end of his rule would be a sign of hope for Venezuela, whose population has largely fled abroad to escape Maduro’s regime.’

Katharina Dröge, co-spokesperson for the Green Party in the Bundestag, has expressed criticism of the attack. On Bluesky, she demanded: “The US air strikes on the Venezuelan capital are a violation of international law and a dangerous military escalation. The German government must condemn this and unequivocally call on the US to de-escalate, comply with international law, and respect state sovereignty.”

The spokesperson for anti-colonial foreign policy for the Left Party in the Bundestag, Vinznez Glaser, commented on Instagram as follows: “Regime change by military strike: attack on Caracas, Maduro taken out of the country – a clear violation of international law. Trump is risking a conflagration for oil and geopolitical dominance. Those who remain silent now are complicit. The German government must finally speak out loud and clear, because international law applies not only selectively, but also to the USA.‘ Glaser added to Europablog: “The abduction of Maduro is not an ‘act of security’, but another expression of neo-colonial power politics that violates sovereignty and jeopardises regional stability. Instead of escalation, we need respect for international law and genuine diplomacy!”

At the EU level, the initial reactions were much more cautious. In a brief statement on Linkedin, the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for the preservation of international law: “Following very closely the situation in Venezuela. We stand by the people of Venezuela and support a peaceful and democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter. With HRVP Kaja Kallas and in coordination with EU Member States, we are making sure that EU citizens in the country can count on our full support.” However, she did not go so far as to condemn the attack, which violated international law.

According to Euractiv, EU Foreign Affairs Representative Kaja Kallas took a similar stance: “The EU has repeatedly stated that Maduro has no legitimacy and has called for a peaceful transition. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), chair of the European Parliament’s Defence Committee, found clearer words on Bluesky: “President Trump, who did not even inform the US Senate before attacking Venezuela, and Vladimir Putin, who is waging war against Ukraine in a particularly cruel and bloody manner, are manifesting their spheres of influence. In doing so, they are trampling on international law and quite obviously giving each other room to do so. It is also a warning from Trump to Denmark and Greenland about what he is prepared to do if he does not voluntarily get what he wants. Maduro is a dictator, and it is best for Venezuela to be freed from this man. However, this liberation must come from within – legitimising the US approach would destroy any credibility the West has left. Europe has no time to lose in finally getting a common foreign and robust security policy off the ground. Every country must realise that either we Europeans have a seat at the global political table, or we end up on the menu.

Belgian political scientist David Criekemans (professor of international politics at the University of Antwerp) also suspects that Trump and Putin want to establish their zones of influence. He told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen: “It could even be that Trump struck a deal with Putin during their recent meeting in Alaska: ‘You take Ukraine, I’ll take Venezuela.’ There are reports that Russia is now withdrawing its diplomats from Venezuela.”

Strack-Zimmermann is probably right in her assessment. The EU must fundamentally change its policy towards the US if it does not want to give up its status as a serious political player on the global stage. It does not have much time left to do so. However, it is doubtful whether this is possible with the current EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (CDU). She is under too much pressure from the unscrupulously right-wing EPP group president Manfred Weber (CSU), who would have liked to see himself in von der Leyen’s place, and from Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), who is keen on German-US bilateralism and deeply subservient to Trump.

And what role does China play as another major power? Some observers now see the danger – in addition to the retrospective legitimisation of Putin’s attack on Ukraine – that China could be motivated to attack Taiwan. So far, China has behaved defensively in military terms and has instead focused on aggressively building up its trade relations. It is to be hoped that the Chinese government will remain loyal to this political line and will not be motivated by Trump’s attack on Venezuela, which violates international law, and the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro to take Taiwan by military force. With a measured and defensive response, the Chinese government would make a significant contribution to containing the danger of an uncontrolled – possibly nuclear – global conflagration and, together with the EU, prove itself to be the last of the major powers still adhering to international law. In the long term, this could be the wiser option.