The US operation against Venezuela constitutes a flagrant breach of international law/norms. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council or in self-defence (Article 51).

Dear Secretary Rubio,

I appreciate your enthusiasm in praising President Trump as a "President of action" following the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela, where American forces conducted airstrikes on Caracas, abducting the President Nicolás Maduro, and brought him to U.S. a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Your statement highlights Trump's decisiveness, emphasizing that when he identifies a problem—like what you describe as a "direct threat to the national interest of the United States"—he follows through without hesitation. However, this action raises profound questions about international law, sovereignty, and America's role in the world. Allow me to address your claim in detail, drawing on historical context, legal considerations, and the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy. My goal here is not to partisanize the issue but to seek truth and provide a balanced perspective.

1. Is This Truly "Action" or a Violation of International Law?

You frame the operation as bold leadership, but critics argue it constitutes a flagrant breach of international law  and norms. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council or in self-defence (Article 51). Venezuela, despite its internal crises and alleged ties to drug trafficking, terrorism, and foreign adversaries like Russia and Iran, was not posing an imminent military threat to the United States. The operation—described as "special U.S. military operations"—involved airstrikes and the arrest of a sitting head of state without congressional approval or international mandate, which some legal experts say echoes unauthorized interventions like the 2003 Iraq War or the 1989 Panama invasion.

President Trump's post-operation statement that the U.S. will "run" Venezuela until a "safe transition of power" further complicates this. While the administration cites national security interests (e.g., countering drug cartels and stabilizing the region), this language evokes regime change without clear legal justification. Protests across the U.S. and internationally highlight concerns that such unilateralism undermines global stability. If "action" means bypassing established laws, it risks setting a precedent where might makes right—something the U.S. has historically criticized in others, like Russia's actions in Ukraine.

2. A New Form of Colonialism? Replacing Historical Powers

Your praise overlooks accusations that this operation signals a revival of U.S. neo-colonialism in Latin America, positioning America as the "sole colonial power" succeeding Britain, France, Russia, and others. Historically, the Monroe Doctrine (1823) asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere to prevent European recolonization, but it evolved into justifications for interventions like the Spanish-American War (1898) and support for coups in countries like Chile (1973) and Guatemala (1954).

In Venezuela's case, the focus on its vast oil reserves—the world's largest—fuels suspicions of resource-driven motives. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) leaders, including General Laura Richardson, have openly discussed U.S. interests in South America's resources, such as lithium, rare earth minerals, gold, and oil, framing them as strategic assets amid competition with China. Richardson's statements emphasize that Washington's priorities in the region extend beyond democracy or human rights to securing these materials for U.S. economic and technological dominance.

This isn't abstract: The buildup to the operation included naval deployments in the Caribbean under the guise of anti-drug efforts, culminating in strikes that critics call "imperialist." While Venezuela's humanitarian crisis under Maduro is undeniable (millions displaced, economic collapse), intervening militarily to "run" the country risks repeating colonial patterns where powerful nations exploit weaker ones for resources. Is this "action" or a modern gunboat diplomacy?

3. Trump's Statements on Canada and Greenland: Expansionist Rhetoric?

You tie Trump's decisiveness to addressing threats, but his broader comments suggest an expansionist worldview. Upon resuming office, President Trump reiterated jokes about Canada becoming the "51st state" amid trade disputes, saying it would resolve issues like tariffs and border security. While often dismissed as humor, these remarks have strained U.S.-Canada relations and sparked Canadian nationalism.

Similarly, Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—citing its strategic Arctic position and mineral resources—has been rebuffed by Denmark and Greenlanders as outdated colonialism. He argues it's "essential" for U.S. security, but proposals like a $100 million offer in the past ignored local autonomy. These aren't isolated quips; they align with a pattern where U.S. "action" prioritizes territorial or resource control, echoing historical empires.

4. The Irony of Borders: Walls vs. Resource Extraction

Finally, the contradiction you overlook is stark: The Trump administration champions building a southern border wall to restrict migration from Latin America, yet pursues policies that could exacerbate instability there—potentially driving more migration. While emphasizing "America First," operations like this aim to secure South American resources (e.g., Venezuela's oil for U.S. energy independence). This duality—fortifying borders against people while crossing them for assets—strikes many as hypocritical, a "worst form of colonialism" where human costs are externalized.

In SOUTHCOM's 2025 posture statement, the command outlines threats in the hemisphere but also stresses resource competition, underscoring that U.S. interests include economic dominance. If the goal is regional stability, why not prioritize diplomacy, sanctions, or multilateral efforts over unilateral force?

A Balanced Conclusion: Action with Accountability

Secretary Rubio, calling Trump a "President of action" may resonate with supporters who value resolve, but true leadership requires accountability to law, allies, and long-term consequences. This operation has drawn bipartisan scrutiny—Republicans largely back it, but Democrats decry it as a departure from Trump's "no more wars" promises. The US government is no one to decide the future of the Venezuela's people, but they themselves and also deserve freedom from the foreign interference under the UN Charter as the people of the US themselves had declared independent from Britain 300 year ago. 

Let's debate this openly: Is this action advancing U.S. interests, or is it a step toward isolationism through imperialism? I'd welcome your thoughts on how this aligns with America's values. Respectfully,

Sidra Jadoon, a Concerned Observer Seeking Truth