Abstract
For years Venezuela has been affected by mass displacement and famine, caused by natural disasters and a significant economic crisis. At the beginning of 2019, the United States sent food and medicines to the population of Venezuela to help mitigate the situation. President Nicolás Maduro— sworn in for a second term in January of the same year — refused to accept the help of the United States and ordered the barricade of the bridge where the American aid was supposed to be transported. Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaidó, risen after the disputed election of Maduro and recognized as the country’s interim president by dozens of countries, announced its decision to let the provisions in.
On the basis of international law, there is enough evidence to claim that Maduro had no obligation to accept the American aid and that the United States’ humanitarian assistance was illegal. Conversely, there is also legal evidence to defend the opposite argument. This article will outline the main claims presented by the two parts and will eventually conclude that both sides have meritorious arguments in this debate.
Arguments In Favour of Maduro
The principal claim made by Maduro was that American aid could not be accepted because it was a political move rather than humanitarian assistance. According to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Article 18(2), humanitarian aid shall be ‘exclusively humanitarian and (of) impartial nature’ [1]. Because US humanitarian assistance could have been seen as a scapegoat to control Venezuela’s affairs, the country’s actions were hardly classifiable as neutral. Thus, since its motives were highly politicized, American actions do not fit into the definition of humanitarian aid. This is mainly because of the United States’ history of foreign affairs.
In the past, the United States has interfered in many countries’ internal politics. Some examples may be found in the foreign policy carried out in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Nicaragua [2]. Its history of intervention in Latin America makes it hard to believe that its actions in Venezuela were purely humanitarian. Particularly, the fact that Trump’s administration assumed a huge role in the coalition pushing for Maduro’s removal hints that there was strategic reasoning behind the United States’ shipment of provisions. Following this claim, Maduro had no obligation to accept the help of the United States, as it could have been considered as an attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of Venezuela and weaken his government.
US assistance may also be seen as illegal because it goes against the consent of Maduro, the elected President of the country. According to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Article 70(1), ‘relief actions which are humanitarian and impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction shall be undertaken, subject to the agreement of the Parties concerned in such relief action’ [3]. Moreover, according to Articles 10 and 13 of the Document on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters 2016, ‘the provision of external assistance requires the consent of the affected State’ [4] and ‘the affected State has the primary role in the direction, control, coordination and supervision of such relief assistance’ [5]. As seen in these documents, the approval of the country’s government is necessary when conducting relief actions. Because the United States sent food and medicines without the consent of Maduro, the effective leader in charge of the country, the American supply of aid could be deemed illegal.
Arguments In Favour of Guaidó
Even if there are arguments to defend Maduro’s side, there are equally valid arguments to deem reasonable Guaidó’s choices. The main claim in favour of Guaidó is the fact that Maduro's opposition to Trump's aid is detrimental to his people. Maduro refusing to accept the much-needed aid to enter his country goes against the legal obligations that he has as head of the state to protect his citizens in the event of disasters. These duties are listed in multiple documents, such as the Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters of 2016. This document outlines in Article 10 that the government of a state has ‘the duty to ensure the protection of persons and provision of disaster relief assistance in its territory’ [6]. Therefore, Maduro's opposition to US aid constitutes a breach of international law, as he denied essential resources to his citizens.
It may also be argued that Maduro’s government was not legitimate. In this case, it would be legal to enter the country without Maduro’s consent. The rationale behind this claim is that Maduro’s electoral process was highly contested while Guaidó’s leadership was supported by the majority of the international actors and the Venezuelan National Assembly, evidencing that the interim leader had almost more legitimacy than the elected one. Even if the opposition leader never exercised effective control over the country, the widespread recognition of his administration hints that Maduro was not fully entitled to reject the United States’ entrance after all. This is, ultimately, because Guaidó had more support than Maduro and, thus, was more entitled to give consent to receiving American provisions.
Conclusion
Overall, it is true that the United States operated without the consent of Maduro's government and that Trump’s aid was highly politicized. However, it is also true that the legality of Maduro’s government was highly contested and that, despite this, he was nonetheless obliged to provide basic needs to his people. Therefore, it is extremely hard to determine whether or not the United States’ assistance in Venezuela could be considered legal and whether or not Maduro was entitled to reject it. This debate is particularly important because it sheds light on the problem of subjectivity. Even if the international legal framework is quite objective, there is always room for interpretation as both sides of an argument can frame the law in a way that fits their purposes. This subjective nature of legislation ultimately thwarts the possibility to reach a verdict.
Sources
[1] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (1997). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/protocolii.aspx
[2] Weyland, K. (2018) ‘Limits of US Influence: The Promotion of Regime Change in Latin America.’ Journal of Politics in Latin America.
[3] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (1977). United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolI.aspx
[4] Draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, with commentaries (2016). UN International Law Commission. Article 10.
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/6_3_2016.pdf
[5] Ibid, Article 13.
[6] Ibid, Article 10.
For years Venezuela has been affected by mass displacement and famine, caused by natural disasters and a significant economic crisis. At the beginning of 2019, the United States sent food and medicines to the population of Venezuela to help mitigate the situation. President Nicolás Maduro— sworn in for a second term in January of the same year — refused to accept the help of the United States and ordered the barricade of the bridge where the American aid was supposed to be transported.