The recent military intervention and statements by former US President Donald Trump regarding Venezuela have provoked a sharp response from British legal experts and Guardian readers, who argue the actions flagrantly violate international law and demand a resolute counter-strategy.
A Clear Violation of International Law
In a letter to the editor, Hannah Walker from Wymondham, Leicestershire, argues that Donald Trump's own description of US aims in Venezuela – to "run" the country until Washington deems a political transition complete and install US oil companies – outlines conduct that is plainly illegal. The UN charter prohibits the use or threat of force against another state except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation, neither of which apply in this case. Walker stresses that regime change by invasion or foreign administration remains unlawful regardless of a government's legitimacy, a rule designed to prevent powerful states imposing political outcomes by force.
Walker contends that Trump's words amount to an admission of occupation. Under the Hague regulations and Geneva conventions, an occupying power cannot assume sovereign authority, dictate political outcomes, or exploit natural resources. To do so, she states, constitutes pillage – a war crime. She also criticises Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer's response, which welcomed the end of Nicolás Maduro's regime but declined to condemn the use of force, for risking treating legality as conditional on political approval.
The Urgent Need for a Collective Response
Another correspondent, Celia Cashman from Sheffield, shares the anger expressed in a recent Guardian column by Nesrine Malik but questions the right response. She argues that righteous indignation alone is insufficient against such "hostile supremacy." Noting that the UK is in no position to confront superpowers alone and that the UN appears toothless, Cashman proposes the only viable route is for Europe to form an alternative alliance with nations like Canada, South Africa, and Australia. This alliance would need sufficient defence and trading power to provide real opposition. She warns that with Europe divided, progress is alarmingly slow and urges using democratic rights to push leaders towards this goal.
Principle and Precedent at Stake
The core argument advanced by the correspondents is that this matter extends far beyond Venezuela. The case against Russia's invasion of Ukraine rests on the same fundamental principle: that borders and governments cannot be changed by force. If Venezuela is treated as an exception, that cornerstone of international order collapses. As Walker puts it, international law cannot be selective. A separate letter from Charlie Owen in London also challenges the language used in reporting, arguing the seizure of Maduro should be termed an "abduction" or "kidnap," as it would be if conducted by any other state.
The collective message from these UK-based perspectives is clear: the actions described by Trump represent a profound challenge to the international legal framework. The response, they argue, must be both principled in upholding the law and pragmatic in building a coalition powerful enough to defend it.
