United States: hard power

By Richard North - January 4, 2026

The US military incursion into Venezuela and the capture of its now former dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife has rocked the international order.

Po-faced EU high representative Kaja Kallas is reduced to a state of diplomatic schizophrenia, forced to acknowledge that Maduro “lacks legitimacy” while also blathering: “Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected”.

Starmer, the very epitome of worship of the international “rules-based order”, is in a similar bind, unable to condemn the US invasion but telling the BBC that he was waiting to establish all the facts but would not “shy away from this”, adding he was a “lifelong advocate of international law”.

He and his soul-mates in the EU, therefore, are torn between condemning Trump for what they undoubtedly believe – but dare not say – is an “illegal act” under international law and not supporting a dictator who stole the presidential election in 2024 and has been condemned by numerous international bodies for falsifying the result.

In the natural order of things, though, no-one is supposed to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state – even one in the hands of an unelected kleptocrat who is robbing the nation blind and presiding over the wholesale production and export of illicit narcotics which are causing havoc in his near-neighbour, the United States.

In one fell swoop, however, Trump has a achieved exactly what the “rules-based order” merchants would liked to have done but have failed to do, able only to stand as impotent spectators, condemning Muduro’s violence to absolutely no effect.

Putin’s Russia is, of course, having a field day, with envoy Kirill Dimitrev calling out the double standard of the European democracies which were quick to condemn the “illegal” invasion of Ukraine but are silent on Venezuela.

Doubtless, a mischief-making Russia, with its allies – which may include China and Iran – will be preparing a formal complaint to the United Nations general assembly, with a view to it delivering a formal resolution condemning the US action, just as it has so many times on Israeli action against Gaza.

Depending on the precise wording of any resolution, which will be carefully drafted, Starmer, the EU and its allies are potentially faced with a nightmare scenario of having to uphold the international rules-based order and thereby support Russia and other even less savoury actors, while condemning the US for achieving an outcome which Starmer has tacitly welcomed.

The only option, therefore, might be to play along with Trump – however much that pains – and in some way support his contention that the US was acting in national self-defence and was, therefore, entitled to take the action it did.

In the UN Charter, there is in fact a right to national self-defence. This is set out primarily in Article 51 of Chapter VII.

The full text states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”.

Thus, there is also recognised an inherent right rooted in customary international law to respond to an attack, but the problem is that the general consensus is that these provisions only apply to action against the use of force with military characteristics, such as by state armed forces or non-state actors (e.g., terrorists).

The effects must be equivalent to a large-scale military assault. This has been clarified in precedents like the International Court of Justice’s rulings in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and the 2005 case Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (2005).

On the other hand, as the Guardian is keen to tell us, there is also Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which has states agreeing to refrain from using military force against other countries, requiring them to respect their sovereignty.

The paper cites Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone. He believes the US action is contrary to this article, saying: “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter”. He adds: “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all”.

We also get Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, who describes the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”.

Then there is Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. She says that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts”, she says.

This would seem to rule out any legal support for Trump’s apparent unilateral military action against Venezuela, even if he cites as his justification the death of US citizens from drugs originating from what he calls a “narco-state”.

Under mainstream interpretations of international law, drug trafficking does not typically qualify as an “armed attack” triggering Article 51.

Drug-related deaths, while tragic and a significant public health crisis, stem from criminal activity (trafficking, distribution, and consumption) rather than direct kinetic or armed violence against the US.

Conventionally, they are addressed through law enforcement, diplomacy, sanctions, or international cooperation (e.g., via treaties like the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs), not typically through direct military action.

However, the Trump administration has argued in recent actions (e.g., strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels near Venezuela in late 2025) that trafficking on the scale experienced from Venezuela equates to an armed attack by “narco-terrorists”, and thus does justify self-defence measures to protect US citizens.

This is an expansion of the “armed attack” definition which, as we see from the Guardian’s reaction, has the “experts” squealing about “overreach”, insisting that the action is a violation of the UN Charter.

Nevertheless, Trump is still likely to pursue the matter and, if he can’t get an agreement that his action was self-defence as currently accepted, he still has a shot in his locker.

What he could do is get his people to advance a novel interpretation of “armed attack”, presenting legal opinions to that effect, directly to the UN Security Council, by-passing the general assembly. This could argue for an “evolved definition” that drug-related harms should equate to an ongoing or imminent armed attack.

As long as Trump’s people can see off any challenges, and get it accepted by enough states, this could be taken as shaping an evolution of customary law, effectively redefining self-defence over time. This would not normally apply ex-post facto, but it would serve to blunt criticism and rationalise the US action in Venezuela.

Furthermore, this would be a far better option than leaving the matter unresolved, as a new status quo would open that way for China to invade Taiwan, using as a precedent Trump’s invasion of Venezuela. It would also lend succour to Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.

In the interim, the US veto power in the Security Council could block formal condemnation by the only body that really matters, leaving scope for Trump to muddy the “international law” waters and do exactly what he likes with Venezuela for as long as it takes.

Echoing Stalin’s comments about the Pope, Trump may well ask: “How many Delta Forces has the UN got?” and then dare the likes of the EU (not forgetting Starmer) to frustrate his actions.

Either way, Trump has got the supporters of the “rules-based order” people on the back foot. Their dogmatic insistence on due process has taken a serious hit. He has shown that “hard power” has a legitimate place in international relations, leaving his allies with little choice but to find a way to support it.