When Countries Bleed, When Peoples Sovereignty is Abused, where is UN?
Uganda’s Democratic Party (DP) Gilbert Sami take on the recent abduction and detention of Venezuelan president by the Americans:
Trump’s slogan of MAGA seems to manifest and go beyond the US borders, he has tried to place America in a position that portrays her might over other countries.
Trumps administration has helped Israel bring down the Hezbollah threats, the Hamas, the Houthis and a crippling economy in Iran, fought for Americas space in trade, armed Taiwan against China, overstretched his power to steal Venezuela’s oil,
and later defying international human rights and humanitarian laws, the sovereignty of Venezuelans by arresting their sitting president.
The interesting point is that America seems to speak two official languages, the language of rights and the other is the language of war; either directly or by exerting external pressure in the name of human rights.
Such instances have ever been witnessed before in Iraq, Libya but yet to be envisaged in East Africa since some leaders and some of their ministers are no different from those borrowing authority from seats to stay in seats.
It could be true that majority Venezuelans may be pleased with Trumps actions since it was observed that Maduros popularity in Venezuela was at not more than 10% for the last four year or so, hence
Americas actions could be a relieve to the oppressed majority, most of whom are self-exiled in neighbouring countries like Columbia
It is also true that Maduro stayed in power not bse he was loved by his nationals but because he had power and continuously used it.
let him go in Manhattan and face federal court charges of drug trafficking, weapons possession, Narco terrorism and conspiracy.
“Abaganda bagamba guluma ya guza”.
But what are the legal implications of Trumps abduction both internally and internationally?
1.Though internally (in US) he is flagged off by:
•The Monroe Doctrine (to be explained later below), and
•The 1989 Federal justice declarations- that the FBI could go into a foreign country, abduct and apprehend an individual considered a fugitive and found violating us laws, he still needed the congressional approval. That is a US municipal law, against his excuse that the Congress would leak the info.
2: And internationally his action violated international established treaties and laws.
and in particular violations of Venezuela’s sovereignty, Maduros diplomatic immunity and human rights under UN charter principles as observed below.
(i)Violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and non-interventional illegal act of aggression and abduction of its sitting head of state was an armed attack on Venezuelan state.
(ii)It also constituted for an interference into Venezuela’s internal affairs undermining her political independence and her citizens’ rights because the arrest wasn’t sanctioned by the Venezuelan nationals.
(iii)US also violated diplomatic and head of states immunity.
Maduro as a sitting president enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdictions of US, a well-established fundamental principle of international law.
(iv)Also his personal immunity
-Rationale personae, protects him from any act of foreign jurisdiction not until he is out of office, and in case of actions committed while in office as per his duties he is also protected from future prosecutions by foreign states in a foreign court under functional immunity-Rationale material.
If I may borrow some words from my NVP Dr. Fred Mukasa Mbidde.
(v)and lastly any head of state is inviolable hence any form of arrest, detention or forceful restraint is prohibited.
Under such observations, maduros abitrally kidnapping and detention by US are clear abuses of fundamental human rights under international convention on civil and political rights- ICCPR.
Maduros abduction was an extra judicial act that at its onset denied him a legal due process, hence subjected him to inhuman treatment.
From the operations commander’s statements, Maduro wanted to exit in a safe room, but was stark at the door, which they say they could have blown it in 47 seconds had he accessed it.
His privacy was abused too.
How do you pick up a leader-maduro from his bed with his dear wife -cilia Flores, dress him up in a sweating pant and jumper, blind fold him and sound proof him with sound buffer earwears?
Furthermore, US violated UNs charter and international Order art.2(4) that prohibits use of threats or force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Trumps actions are threats to international peace and security, the very object for which UN was established to address.
In my view, all could be a little bit well if the home country’s govt had consented to, or if the UN security council had authorized the action under chapter VII- “threat to peace”, or
ICC warrant issued- to which state parties have to oblige. But still this is applicable to an individual no longer in office.
Abduction of a sitting head of state isn’t just an illegality but an egregious assault on the pillars of modern international legal systems.
what amuses is that, US is one of the five permanent members on the UNSC commonly referred to as the P5s which formed the UN after WWII, with UN veto powers established under the UN charter chapter V article 23, with a purpose of maintaining peace and security.
What could be Trumps strength, UNs weakness?
Because the UNSC structure isn’t judicial but political, there are no formal remedies for a P5 member who violates the charter-UN.
A Venezuela can sue the US for charter violation through the ICJ, to which the US as a P5 can refuse to participate,
and besides, the ICJ can only adjudicate disputes and issue advisory opinions.
And even if the ICJ rules against the US, it has no police to effect the arrests so the resolution will be referred back to UNSC where the violator(US) holds veto powers and once one of the P5 countries opposes the outcome, the entire resolution collapses.
In case the UNSC is deadlocked, the UN general assembly-GA can take up the matter under the 1950 “unifying for peace resolution”, convene an emergency session and pass a resolution condemning Americas actions.
But the GA resolutions are not binding legally on states, hence can’t impose sanctions or military force, case in point is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Besides any substantive action by the UNSC whether resolution or sanction, condemnation or military action requires a 9/15 votes with no veto from any P5.
So, a violating P5-US would only veto a resolution against itself like the 2003 invasion of Iraq-by the US and UK.
The UN charter is based on great power consensus model from 1945, it doesn’t have a mechanism to punish its permanent guardians.
The only consequence to Us would be political, economic and reputational loss and isolation imposed by Venezuela’s allies, the same way it was when France and Germany isolated the US on Iraq invasion.
Let’s wind up with the Monroe Doctrine, a defining statement of U.S. foreign policy toward the Western Hemisphere.
The Core Document was authored by president James Monroe and delivered to Congress on December 2, 1823, spearheaded by the then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, with two key events:
a) Latin American Independence,
b) European Threats from the holly alliance.
President Monroe declared four separate but related points, which were later condensed into three core principles:
1.The Non-Colonization Principle,
2.The Non-Interference Principle (Two Parts): Toward Existing Colonies: The U.S. would not interfere with existing European colonies in the Americas (e.g., British Canada, Caribbean islands).
Toward Independent Nations: Europe must not interfere in the affairs of the newly independent republics.
3.The Non-Intervention (or Separation) Principle.
In return, the United States pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of Europe or in existing European wars. It was a statement of hemispheric separation.
But all these assertions had an Underlying Motive and a hidden reality
Motive:
While framed as protecting the sovereignty of Latin American nations, the primary goal was to secure U.S. national interests. It aimed to prevent the resurgence of European powers that could challenge U.S. westward expansion and growing economic influence.
Hidden Reality: In 1823, the United States lacked the military power (especially the navy) to enforce this doctrine on its own. It relied implicitly on the British Royal Navy, which also had a commercial interest in keeping Latin American markets open and free from Spanish mercantilism
The doctrine was largely dormant until the late 19th century when President Theodore Roosevelt
responded to Venezuela’s debt crisis to European powers, by adding a crucial and controversial twist arguing that chronic “wrongdoing” or “impotence” by a Latin American state (like defaulting on debts) could force the U.S., as a “civilized nation,” to exercise “international police power ” in 1904.
This assertion transformed the Monroe Doctrine from a defensive policy (Europe, stay out) into a justification for U.S. intervention, an action that gave birth to “Gunboat Diplomacy” and numerous U.S. military interventions, occupations, and political meddling in the Caribbean and Central America (e.g., Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic) to protect American economic and strategic interests.
The doctrine was celebrated as a cornerstone of foreign policy, asserting American leadership and protecting the hemisphere.
During the Cold War, it was invoked to justify opposition to Soviet influence (e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis, interventions in Guatemala and Chile).
Today its again Russia and China targeted under Trump.
The doctrine is seen as a tool used to justify U.S. dominance, interference, and disregard for sovereignty.
What it was:
A U.S. policy declaration from 1823 opposing new European colonization and interference in the Americas.
How it changed:
It evolved from a largely theoretical warning into an active justification for U.S. interventionism in Latin America (via the Roosevelt Corollary).
· Lasting Effect: It established the framework for two centuries of asymmetrical U.S.-Latin American relations, defining the U.S. as the hemisphere’s dominant power and creating deep-seated Latin American resentment toward U.S. paternalism and intervention.
In my own view, Trump seems to be adopting the same doctrine purposely to cut short the expansion of the China and Russian empires and establish America as a dominant political, military, economic power only world power.
His attack on Venezuela could be due to the sale of her oil to China in Chinese yen, an action seen to undermine the dollar influence and the growth of China’s economy.
To those who can access him, tell him that if Chinas expansion is the target, most East African heads of state are accomplices.
Sammy Gilbert Armado,
DP Great Again.
