Strikes on Venezuelan Drug Boats- Are They Justified?

Mallory O'Neill '29

Strikes on supposed drug boats, taking place twenty-two times beginning September second, have struck controversy across America. These boats, allegedly trafficking drugs from overseas, were destroyed in the attacks and reportedly killed eighty-seven people.

The Trump administration justifies these strikes as nation-wide self defense against narco-terrorists. "Every boat that gets hit, we save 25,000 American lives and when you view it that way, you don't mind," said President Trump during a speech in Pennsylvania on December ninth.

However, many experts on criminal cartels and drug trafficking claim that these attacks have little to no impact on the amount of overdoses in America. According to an expert on drug trafficking and addiction, Felbab-Brown, fentanyl, a drug that is the cause of a majority of United States drug deaths, isn’t brought from Venezuela, where many of the boats supposedly came from. Rather than bringing it to America, most of it goes to other countries. Jeffrey Singer, a drug policy expert at the Cato Institute, claims that all the strikes will do is make drug cartels come up with more powerful forms of drugs. It is suggested that things like public health services and more medical treatment for those suffering addiction fight against drug deaths better than military force does.

Many experts support the administration's decisions to use military force. However, Andrés Martínez-Fernández told NPR, “Military action and these designations, beyond them being appropriate, are really necessary to confront these threats.” In an email to NPR, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly claimed that the military strikes were effective: "The President is right – any boat bringing deadly poison to our shores has the potential to kill 25,000 Americans or more," she said.

More controversy follows the strikes, as now many question the legality of these attacks to begin with. After the first strike in September, which killed eleven people, a video of the event showed two survivors in the aftermath, who were later killed in a second strike. The White House has claimed multiple times that the strikes were given legal order, but many democrats and foreign officials wonder if the attack on survivors could be considered a war crime.

Although the United States is not required to follow the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea, the United States military legal advisors have said that they should act in a way that follows it. Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels in international waters, with few exceptions. Professor Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said that, “Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures.” Additionally, he stated that the use of aggressive tactics must be reasonable and necessary in self defense and only when there is immediate danger, as well as that that the strikes were likely unlawful under the law of sea.

The killing of members of the Tren de Aragua cartel may have violated the international law on the use of force as well. Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can use force and unleash their military when under attack in self-defense. Trump previously accused the cartel of conducting irregular warfare against the United States, and the State Department has declared them to be a foreign terrorist group. Professor Becker of Trinity College Dublin opposed this reasoning, saying, “The fact that U.S. officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets," as well as, "The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation.”

When a White House official was asked about the same strike, they said that Trump had authorized it after the boat had left Venezuela with the Tren de Aragua cartel members, and that the President was committed to preventing drugs reaching the United States by all means necessary. The Pentagon refused to share any legal advice from before carrying out the strike.

As of now, no conclusive decision has been made. Some people believe that the strikes were justified, while others question the effectiveness and legality of these attacks.