Operation Absolute Resolve and the Violation of the Just War Tradition

The American military operation that led to the capture of the head of a sovereign state in Latin America is not only reflective of the brash behavior on the part of the U.S. but also represents a violation of the Just War tradition the U.S. claims to follow.

In this context, the very foundation of the international law of war rests on the idea of Just War — if war is to be waged, it must be done in a fair, judicious, and ethical manner. In that context, the two foundational principles of that idea are — Jus Ad bellum and Jus in Bello, while the former is concerned with principles of the right to go to war, the latter is concerned with the right conduct of all parties in a war.

The idea of Just War has evolved over the years; this tradition from St. Augustine and since then has been refined with the inputs of many other thinkers such as Michael Walzer,  Jean Bethke Elshtain.

However, the one thinker who systematized this tradition and laid the ethical-intellectual yardsticks in the tradition of Just War is the Italian friar, theologian, and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas.

Therefore, it becomes essential to undertake a critical scrutiny of the U.S. actions from a Thomistic lens.

Gross Violation of War Ethics

Aquinas outlined his ideas of war in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica. For Aquinas, waging a war must be anchored in the principle of Justa Causa or the right cause for a sovereign authority to go to war. Unfortunately, the ‘just cause’ the American government put forward—to make use of force to stop drug trafficking emanating from Venezuela — was flimsy to say the least.

The next principle St. Aquinas outlines as a part of the Just War tradition is Recta Intentio or Right Intention. The American administration argued that its intention was to prosecute President Nicolas Maduro for being the kingpin of the drug trafficking ecosystem that was harming U.S. lives, which was flimsy to say the least. In fact, in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 1986 judgment on Nicaragua v The United States of America ruled explicitly that drug trafficking doesn’t constitute a concrete ground for making use of armed force under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The real cause, however, behind the U.S. military operation lay in this—seizing the oil of a sovereign country. At over 300 billion barrels, Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, accounting for a fifth of global oil reserves. The appropriation of Venezuelan oil and Trump’s decision to sell it to the rest of the world are symptomatic of how, like Kuwait, the U.S. is only interested in the natural resources of another country. This, therefore, violates one of the core principles of Thomistic Just War tradition.

Aquinas argued that war must be waged bearing in mind the restoration of law and order as the raison d’être of the state action; this manifests itself in the principle of Tranquillitas Ordinis. While the U.S. sought to demonstrate the exhibition of force in a calibrated manner by taking swift action for the purpose of abducting the President, the long term implications of this operation will not only not restore order, but they will shatter tranquility. Despite having an interim head of state, Venezuela joins a long list of countries that have suffered and continue to suffer thanks to U.S. meddling. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and others. Intervention for “restoring order” may very well serve as a prelude to the eventual degeneration of the Venezuelan polity thanks to U.S. high-handedness.

In addition to the violation of the Just War principles, the military operation ended up disrupting the peace of Latin America. Francisco Tatad, a former presidential press secretary and a senator in the Philippines, has, in a recent essay titled “He promised peace, but delivers war,” argued that this not only constitutes the breach of peace and amity in Latin America but also constitutes backtracking on the part of Trump’s commitment to peace, which he had outlined to be the ‘hallmark’ of his presidency. Tatad argued that this is a part of a broader pattern—to make use of American martial power to arm twist states into submission.

Therefore, this highlights that instead of ending “forever wars,” Trump’s use of American armed forces signals a militaristic posture that may deepen existing conflicts. His actions not only signal the lack of intent to end wars but also widen the arc of conflict across the planet. By abducting the head of the state of Venezuela, Tatad argues that it will not only lead to a breach of peace in the Western Hemisphere but will end up widening the arc of conflict in Eurasia and now the Middle East.

In conclusion, it can be argued that the international law of war seeks to make the right to go to war and the conduct of war as humane as possible in order to avert the loss of lives and property. Unfortunately, when the U.S., which claims to be the biggest cheerleader of this legal regime, ends up blatantly misusing and abusing it, the world becomes a more dangerous place. It is high time the international community held Trump in general and the U.S. in particular accountable for its wanton violation of international law and disruption of peace.

Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook