sarahBy Joseph Gainza
Ever since Donald Trump stepped up his pressure on Venezuela, which included the extrajudicial killing of the crews of several boats in international waters, without any evidence of wrongdoing, certainly not warranting death, many commentators have rightly condemned his action. Now that Trump has included the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president and his wife, while leaving intact the rest of the Chavista government, and has initiated, with Israel, an unprovoked war with Iran, it is clear that his intentions have nothing to do with establishing democracy in the Latin American nation or anywhere else where he wants U.S. power to be unobstructed. So what is it all about?
The condemnations have included violations of international law, the stealing of Venezuela’s oil — something Trump has admitted he intends to do and may attempt in Iran — to reimposing a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine on the Western Hemisphere; what he calls the “Donroe Doctrine.” Imperialism pure and simple.
While all these charges are true and some of them even admitted to by Trump, they often do not mention the long-term implications of these actions that we normally attribute to “rogue states.” Reading the administration’s recently released National Security Strategy of the United States, a legal requirement of all U.S. administrations, gives us insight into the deeper and far more dangerous policy goals Trump is pursuing.
Basically, in its security strategy, the Trump administration does away with international law and norms of national conduct. In the past, when nations have violated international law, as have several, they justify their actions as necessary exceptions and thus acknowledge the necessity of law. The Trump NSS denies the relevance of international law altogether.
In the words of Gabor Rona, professor of practice at Cardozo Law School, where he teaches international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law, “The throughline of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is not merely episodic noncompliance with international norms, but a deeper rejection of the rules-based international order itself.”
When in an interview with The New York Times, Trump was asked if international law might constrain his foreign policy, he responded, “I don’t need international law.” The only constraint, he went on to say, was “my own morality.”
When recently asked when he thought the Iran war would end, he said “When I feel it.” The ending of mass killing and the destruction of societies in the Middle East, Trump says, depends on how he “feels.”
Trump’s actions in Venezuela and Iran have shown that the U.S. is embarking on a dangerous and volatile new world order where raw power and the ability to dominate other nations and peoples is the new (old) norm. It is the Monroe Doctrine on steroids.
Recently he made clear his intention to bypass both the Congress and the American people when he said, “Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it.”
In this world, there was no violation of law when Russia invaded Ukraine, nor would there be if China should decide to take over Taiwan, or if Israel continues to dominate Gaza and the West Bank. We are back to the world where, as the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, quoting powerful Athens telling the much weaker Melian government, “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
Yet the United States of America was founded on a different set of principles, which placed law above power. The still inspiring words of the preamble to the Constitution states clearly who is to rule in this country:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
A country founded not by bishops or kings, but by “The People,” we have struggled mightily for 250 years to make real the promise of those words. We have sought to build, broaden, deepen, and strengthen both this country and, in Abraham Lincoln’s ennobling phrase “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
President Lincoln also wondered in his Gettysburg Address: “… whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” President Trump’s dismissal of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally, has once again made that a burning question. How, and in what way, do We the People answer?
Joseph Gainza is a member of the Pro Democracy Committee of the Central Vermont Nonviolent Resistance, as are the following people who have endorsed this commentary: Eric Bachman, Ginny Callan, Donna Goodrich, Cynthia Hartnet, Lynne Jakubauskas, Michelle Resnak, Carolyn Shapiro, and Frank White.
The material presented here represents the opinion of the author and does not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Commentaries may be submitted to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont. Submissions are encouraged to be 500 to 750 words in length.
