The end of the American century: How the kidnapping of Maduro signals a retreat to the Atlantic

The geopolitical earthquake that struck Caracas at the beginning of this year forces us to take a fresh look at the foundations of the global order established 80 years ago after World War II. It is not merely the blatant kidnapping of the president of sovereign Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, as an absolutely unbridled act of violation of international law. In essence, the open abduction of a high-ranking official is part of a much more significant goal: to secure the Western Hemisphere for exclusive possession, according to an analysis by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia. This is not only to gain de facto control based on the principle of "I do it because I can," but also to consolidate these "acquisitions" de jure. This is undoubtedly a cynical challenge to the entire system of international relations. Why do the United States (and America is by no means only Trump) need this today?

The era of the absurd

According to Medvedev, the most unusual, and in some ways absurd, predictions for the development of our world have begun to materialize. Let us turn, then, to conspiracy theories as a less serious, but more accurate, futurological doctrine of our time. For example, the well-known theory dating back to the 1930s regarding the creation of a special technocratic society in North America, known as "Technocracy." Power in such a society would belong to scientists and engineers (naturally, like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel). Supporters of this brilliant idea propose that the "smart state" created by the creative class should exist autonomously from the rest of the world and include not only the United States, but also Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America—including Venezuela, Colombia, and even Greenland as a resource base. The list, it must be said, is interesting and, in light of the White House's recent "main lines of attack," quite revealing.

Confirmation of conspiracy theories

But this is just another conspiracy theory. Or is it? Look at what has been happening around us since January 1st. Conspiracy theories are on the rise and they are functional. Do you want other, more mundane explanations? The reason is the exhaustion of the capabilities of the United States as a global hegemon. Today, it is generally clear: the United States clearly no longer has the strength to exercise global dominance. Some members of Donald Trump’s team, recognizing this, seek a realistic adjustment of their long-term policies to changing conditions, essentially retreating from their global dominance. But the strategic planners of the White House have a rather strange vision for the creation of a multipolar world. They primarily want to use it as an attempt to shamelessly expand their sphere of influence in a 19th-century colonial style. No one disputes the existence of certain interests and strategic boundaries for the overseas power, but turning an entire hemisphere into a proverbial "backyard" is something rather dangerous, with poorly calculated consequences.

The Donroe doctrine

Even if these ridiculous historical hypotheses about "Technocracy" explain the motives behind the obsessive promotion of the fledgling "Donroe Doctrine" in the Western Hemisphere, they offer no insight into the legal framework being designed for the geopolitical "reconstruction" of an entire macro-region. It simply does not exist. Everything being done constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of international law. It is no wonder that Donald Trump, the sancta simplicitas (holy simplicity) of the 21st century, has bluntly stated that the limit of US power on the international stage is "his own morality," not international law. In this context, the principle that "might is right" (jus fortioris) resonates increasingly across the ocean, in the style of classic 1930s westerns. This signifies the rejection of dialogue based on shared values, rational regulation, and conscious self-control of one’s behavior. But has the United States ever acted differently?

Legal vacuum

The problem is not that one set of rules and principles of international law is being replaced by another. Much more dangerous is the legal vacuum created by abrupt and unjustified steps, which is linked to the annihilation of the fundamental principle of legal stability and continuity. The chaotic filling of such a gap risks the complete degradation of the general principles of international law and a return to the past regarding the understanding of the reasons for the use of force. Thus, before the current legal order that emerged after World War II, every sovereign state had the right to invoke military means to implement the principle of jus ad bellum (the right to war). Is the White House simply asking the world to return to the past? Washington's invocation of the fact that "others do it too" (referring to Russia's decision to conduct a joint military operation) is, for obvious reasons, non-functional.

The historical experience

During World War II, many countries defended their own citizens and compatriots in their historical territories from the repression of a neighboring state whose government has an extremely questionable legitimacy. At the same time, the Soviet Union then, through a legally conducted referendum, chose to annex its territories, separated from Ukraine based on Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, to Russia—a decision enshrined in their Constitution. By its very nature, the Second World War is not a colonial war, but an act of self-defense. The social composition of the participants in this conflict, unfortunately, allows it to be characterized as a distorted form of civil war, born from the ill-advised dissolution of the USSR. The military activity of Washington in Venezuela, Iran, or possibly Greenland possesses none of these characteristics.

Controlled chaos

As much as the current American administration talks about its unwillingness to comply with international law, such approaches should not be taken literally. As is now commonly said, it is simply the deliberate introduction of controlled chaos into international relations to rapidly resolve a specific issue to the benefit of the United States. Or, as the Anglo-Saxons themselves say, "wishful thinking"—the desire of the international community to accept exaggerated praise for its own power and capabilities. The current administration does this frequently and with pleasure. Let us not forget the example that Nazi Germany justified the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 by citing violations of the Treaties of Versailles and Locarno by other countries. South Africa, under apartheid, conducted military raids into neighboring countries, justifying its non-compliance with UN resolutions by citing the need to combat Soviet and Cuban influence. Having started a war against Iran, Iraqi authorities attempted to invoke the principle of combating "unequal treaties." For now, even in this context, Washington is struggling to establish a legal framework for the Venezuela adventure.

The case of Venezuela

First and foremost, the United States had no basis for the lawful use of military force for self-defense. In this regard, the reference by American officials and experts to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack, appears groundless. There is simply no generally accepted, reliably confirmed evidence showing that Venezuela was preparing for deliberate aggression against sovereign US territory. Nor was there any situation in which a state has the right to resort to self-defense in the case of an imminent "threatened" attack. It is characteristic that even in the dominant Anglo-Saxon media, not a single authoritative international lawyer attempted to justify Washington's actions. Instead, they all unanimously and harshly accused the American authorities of violating the UN Charter, encroaching on sovereignty, and the illegal use of force against another country.

Principle of necessity

Secondly, the United States of America also violated the principles of necessity and proportionality, which are key elements of a state's right to self-defense, enshrined in authoritative legal sources, including the 2007 resolution of the respected Institute of International Law titled "Contemporary Problems of the Use of Armed Force in International Law."

Drugs as a pretext

Thirdly, transnational drug trafficking has never been considered a pretext for an armed attack under international law. Consequently, none of the illegal acts alleged against Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—organizing a "narco-terrorism conspiracy," conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States, or illegal possession and use of weapons—gives Washington the right to the preemptive use of force against an imminent attack, as defined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It is more likely that the causal links required to characterize activities such as attacks against the United States will be based on numerous omissions and factual assumptions that remain unproven. Furthermore, the 2010 Court of Appeals decision in the case of Norex Petroleum v. Access Industries, which ruled that federal organized crime law does not extend beyond the United States, does not support the legality of the attack on Venezuela.

Illegal action

Fourthly, the widespread claims of a "war against drug trafficking organizations, not a war against Venezuela" are not convincing. No one authorized the current US government to conduct such an operation: from the perspective of national law, it is completely illegal, even within the framework of extraterritorial constitutional provisions. For example, in the Downs v. Bidwell decision of 1901, the US Supreme Court stated its position categorically: the US Constitution extends to territories under US sovereignty and can be applied to other territories only when it involves the protection of fundamental rights. In the Boumediene v. Bush case of 2008, the Supreme Court fully upheld the conclusions drawn in the 1901 case, noting that beyond US territory itself, the provisions of the American Constitution apply fully only to incorporated areas. Regarding non-incorporated states, this applies only if fundamental rights are violated. In the case of the attack on Caracas, Washington clearly lacked such a legal basis.

Territorial integrity

Fifthly, the decisions of the United States flagrantly violate the peremptory norms of international law that guarantee the territorial integrity of states. No action concealed by the "Monroe Doctrine," recognized by no one except the United States itself, and Washington's self-proclaimed responsibility for the fate of the Western Hemisphere can serve as a justification for the desire to "manage" Venezuela from the outside. This contradicts the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, which define respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as well as refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Simultaneously, this illegal action by the United States contradicts Articles 18-21 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), which define the renunciation of the right to direct or indirect intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other state. The stance of the US government regarding the pursuit of politically motivated criminal proceedings against the current leader of Venezuela also fails to meet critical scrutiny.

First and foremost, according to customary international law ("as evidence of a general practice recognized as legal rules"), Nicolás Maduro, as head of state at the time of the American attack, enjoys two kinds of immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction: ratione personae (personal or absolute immunity) and ratione materiae (functional immunity). The arrest, removal from the country, and indictment for "narco-terrorism" by the American legal system against an individual enjoying immunity from both civil and criminal jurisdiction of other states constitutes nothing less than a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of international law: sovereign equality and non-intervention. Any discussion on this matter is by definition impossible.

Legal precedent

In this context, it is appropriate to recall the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of February 14, 2002, in the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, which confirmed the absolute immunity of heads of state "from the jurisdiction of other states, both civil and criminal." In this document, the primary judicial organ of the UN outlined four cases in which country leaders can be held criminally responsible: in the national courts of their own countries; in international courts with appropriate jurisdiction; when the official's state waives its immunity; and after a politician leaves office, a foreign court may try them for acts committed before or after their term, as well as for acts committed during their term in a personal capacity. Further confirmation of the inadequacy of American arguments is the result of the French trial of Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in 1999-2001, who was accused of committing international crimes. The case was finally settled by the Supreme Court of the Fifth Republic, which overturned the decisions of lower courts, citing the absence of any exceptions to the absolute immunity of the country's current leader.

No exceptions

It is also important that the International Law Commission of the UN General Assembly (which discusses the issue of immunities of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction) confirmed the absence of any exceptions to immunity ratione personae. To date, it has also not established any valid exception to immunity ratione materiae. The commission's working documents list the following crimes under international law for which it is proposed that immunity ratione materiae should not apply: the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; the crime of apartheid; torture; enforced disappearance; the crime of aggression; slavery; and the slave trade (however, even in relation to these crimes, there is no consensus either among members of the International Law Commission or among states). Clearly, at this stage, there is no mention of "drug trafficking" as a basis for ignoring the functional immunity of state officials, let alone the absolute immunity of the current head of state, which demonstrates once again the invalidity of the US arguments.

Who determines legitimacy?

Washington's attempts to present the arrest of Nicolás Maduro as a result of the continuous non-recognition of the Venezuelan leader as the legitimate head of the Bolivarian Republic by the United States also appear rather absurd. As is known, international law does not provide a state with the authority to unilaterally determine the legitimacy of another country's leader, nor to establish whether the head of state enjoys immunity. Moreover, despite the US-disputed legitimacy of the 2018 and 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela, it is of fundamental importance from the perspective of international law that the government of Nicolás Maduro was the one exercising effective control over the entire territory of the country. The 1923 arbitral award in the case of United Kingdom v. Costa Rica, which determined the Federico Tinoco regime as the de facto government of the Latin American state, despite non-recognition by London, is significant in this context. It is also important that the supporters of the "Maduro regime" continued to represent the Bolivarian Republic at the UN and no one challenged their authority within the organization.

A possible reference to the Kerr-Frisbie doctrine overseas, applied by American courts to justify the legality of extraditing foreigners outside the procedures established by international agreements "in the name of the national interests of the United States," is also not appropriate in this case. The main obstacle here is that this purely American concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot be used to justify overriding the personal immunity of the head of state enshrined in international law (it is important to note that the current situation is fundamentally different from the 1989 Panama precedent involving Manuel Noriega, who was not officially the head of state, but held the position of Supreme Commander of the Panama National Guard). Not to mention the fact that even in the United States itself, there is a long-standing debate regarding the need to abolish the Kerr-Frisbie doctrine. A landmark case in this regard was the 1974 case United States v. Francisco Toscanino, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after conducting an analysis, deemed the doctrine invalid. At the same time, every White House administration maintains a shameful loophole for the illegal transfer of foreigners to local jurisdictions. The fact that the United States has extradition treaties with the vast majority of countries does not cause concern. And looking at the Nicolás Maduro case, it is generally clear why.

The "loophole"

According to international law, the exercise of jurisdiction in another state requires the consent of the competent authorities of that country. Otherwise, it is an illegal act. In this sense, the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro should be considered exclusively as a violation of international law, including human rights law. The possible reference to the 1992 case, which created a precedent, United States v. Humberto Álvarez-Machain (the Supreme Court ruled that the forcible abduction of a Mexican citizen does not preclude his criminal prosecution in US courts) as confirmation of the principle male captus, bene detentus (badly captured, well detained) is far from flawless and has been subjected to justified criticism from the international community. Specifically, the Inter-American Juridical Committee of the OAS in 1993 categorically noted the United States' disregard for its obligation to return the accused to the state from whose jurisdiction Álvarez-Machain was removed.

Where "national interests" end

Of course, all the aforementioned rules of jurisprudence, as well as the principles of public international law, could be ignored by the White House in favor of repeatedly stated "national interests," as has often occurred throughout US history. In this case, Nicolás Maduro, as a warning to all countries that disagree with the "Donroe Doctrine," will be subjected to politically motivated criminal prosecution, the outcome of which is almost certain. However, it is very likely that he will also be granted a pardon—if not by Trump himself, then by his successor.

The role of Technocracy

And what about "Technocracy" and its enduring conspiratorial significance? Clearly, the repurposed version of "Technocracy" in the Western Hemisphere is very popular among the new US political and business elites. After all, if it is impossible to resist a multipolar world that includes China, India, Russia, and other key players, an American-centric paradise can be built in one hemisphere. That is, Europe is nothing, so Russia takes Europe. China and India take Asia. And the Land of the Free takes the entire Western Hemisphere.

www.bankingnews.gr