{"id":711,"date":"2026-01-09T16:30:13","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T16:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.brethren.org\/peacebuilding\/?p=711"},"modified":"2026-01-09T17:37:33","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T17:37:33","slug":"just-law-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.brethren.org\/peacebuilding\/just-law-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Just law enforcement? A Brethren reflection on Venezuela strikes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Three
Plaza Los Simbolos in Caracas, Venezuela. Photo by Wladimir Andarcia on pixabay.com<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Tim McElwee<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US government has killed at least 115 people through its unlawful attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean over the past several months. The January 3rd military assault on Venezuela, which resulted in the forceful removal of Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, killed at least 80 people and the death toll is expected to rise as investigations continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was no accident that the first images of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro in the United States revealed the dictator surrounded by US officials wearing black jackets with the letters DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) prominently displayed. Secretary of State Rubio and other members of the administration have been working hard to convince the public that the attack and Maduro\u2019s extraction was simply a police action. US ambassador to the United Nations, Michael Walz, asserted at the UN Security Council on January 5, \u201cThis was a law enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applying vague political concepts that lack legal merit, some proponents of the US incursion into Venezuela suggest the military attack was justifiable as part of the fight against \u201cinternational narco-terrorism.\u201d Others insist that the military assault was necessary for reasons of self defense and national security, despite the fact that Venezuela poses no realistic threat to the US.  Still others would have us believe that the recent US military intervention was necessary for humanitarian purposes and the furtherance of democracy in Venezuela. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skepticism at home and abroad in response to this latter justification is certainly understandable.  Under the guise of promoting democracy, from 1898 through 1934 the United States launched more than 30 military interventions in Latin America. In some instances US military forces remained in the occupied countries for as long as 25 years, as was the case in Nicaragua from 1909 to 1934.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though it has long been established under international law that the natural resources of a sovereign nation-state are the possession of that country, in explaining his reasons for invading Venezuela, the president has said simply, \u201cWe\u2019re going to take our oil back.\u201d  He then proudly announced on January 6 that, \u201cthe interim authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 million barrels of high quality, sanctioned oil to the United States of America.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly, this latest instance of regime change orchestrated through US military force cannot be described as an instance of humanitarian intervention. Nor was it an effort to protect innocent lives in the US, Venezuela, or elsewhere. The goal of this military incursion is not nation-building and the promotion of democracy. Instead, the attack was an overt and lawless attempt by the White House to exert US control over Venezuela\u2019s enormous oil reserves in pursuit of total hemispheric domination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inevitable international chaos inherent in President Trump\u2019s callous rejection of the rules-based international order, his blatant disregard for the UN Charter and the US Constitution, coupled with the administration\u2019s unconvincing suggestions that the use of military force to assert US hemispheric dominance is somehow justifiable and law enforcing, reminded me of a nearly 30 year-old Annual Conference statement entitled, “Nonviolence and Humanitarian Intervention<\/a>“.  Although this document is quite dated, it is truly demoralizing to assess the many concerns it addressed in 1996 that remain far too relevant today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Written near the conclusion of the Cold War, this Annual Conference statement begins by naming some of the continuing needs we have to \u201cunderstand the causes of war more fully, to provide more effective antidotes to them, and to help victims of violence.\u201d  Among several examples, the three introductory concerns seem particularly prescient: <\/p>\n\n\n\n