In the Trump world order, is there a moral justification for his actions against Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, as well as the simple view that might is right?
Clearly, H.M. Government, led with limited effect by Sir Keir Starmer, thinks that Trump’s actions were illegal under international law, but is too scared to say so. It sits inelegantly on the fence, from which vantage point it has no influence.
Yet international law is a work of fiction, it has no court with undisputed jurisdiction, it is based on treaties from which the contracting parties may resile, and it has no parliament to amend the law as times change. It has grown up as an idea through the centuries, that states sought to avoid war, but it has always been, to the extent that it has had any effect, the rule of the strong over the weak. The Royal Navy put down piracy and slavery, not through enforcing international law, but by force.
It is hard to think of an example where the behaviour of a superpower has been changed by international law; although there are instances of it being used by the United States in Korea and in the first Gulf War, to defend what it intended to do anyway.
If it is accepted that international law is not a reality and has no genuine means of containing a major nation, then the international order, so favoured by the left, looks bereft of either power or authority. However, that does not mean that right and wrong have been abolished between nations any more than between individuals. To decide if Trump’s actions are morally justified, who better to consult than St. Thomas Aquinas.
