How should we evaluate the attack on Venezuela? By international law, or by its probable consequences? Let me limit the choices to these two.
Many people say international law should be our guide. A few of these claim Trump's actions were legal, while more seem to cite international law to describe them as lawless, reckless, illegal, immoral, etc.
Four eternal criteria seem to be in play in geopolitics: Power; Interest; Law; and Justice.
Power and Interest usually determine how states treat one another, even when they appeal to Law or Justice. And national interest, and the means one has to defend it, should be considered, and it would be unrealistic to deny their force. Nations do act in their own interest, and in a sense, should. But then they begin to realize something called "enlightened self-interest," which means, in essence, that if they act badly, they can expect bad karma -- not just because the Universe or God will avenge their victims, but because they will be seen and treated as bad actors, and alliances will form against them.
That is a danger the US, along with other major powers like Russia and China, need to consider.
But beyond that, as a Christian, of course I think nations should act justly.
What does International Law add to justice?
Not much, I think.
Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law begins with this rousing declaration:
“There is no legislative or judicial authority recognized by all nations, which determines the law that regulates the reciprocal relations of States. The origin of this law must be sought in the principles of justice . . . ”
Wheaton wrote at a time when western nations were expanding ferociously, for Power and Interest, but not always with much concern for Justice. Wheaton seemed to concede that there is no paramount authority which can be cited to back international law up. Neither is there today. The UN is a toothless lion, usually roaring for the wrong side. It cares little for justice. If justice is to be found, it must be allied with Power.
The Presbyterian missionary WAP Martin translated Wheaton's long book into Chinese, to furnish the Qing government (when China was run by the Manchus) with legal weapons against European nations that were taking bites out of China. He did this under consultation of Anson Burlingame, Lincoln's envoy to Beijing.
Lincoln's former general, Ulysses S. Grant, when he visited Tianjin and Beijing after his own presidency, perhaps more realistically recommended trains. Grant had fought and won a war by using rail technology, and by destroying the South's rail lines. Books may be helpful -- and Burlingame helped China a lot by negotiating treaties -- but Grant recognized that interests must be defended with power, which means technology.
And even Wheaton seemed to recognize that Law must ultimately be reduced to Justice, if it is going to say anything to Power and Interest that is worth hearing.
Christians are told to obey their rulers, except when we "must obey God, rather than man." That applies to the rulers of one's nation. But it does not apply to the so-called "international community," a vague and dubious entity, which in practice seems obsessed with chastising Israel for daring to exist, and choosing Somali wheeler-dealers to lead the UN Security Council.
Justice must be set first, with caution, recognizing that Law is often a disguise for Power and Interest, and that Justice is also often self-interested and deceptive. Trump talks much about Power and Interest, and sometimes makes appeals to "fairness" (Justice) which tend to be self-serving. But Justice is more closely aligned with the commands of God than what lawyers propose about international law. Law can be a tool to promote Justice, but should never be an excuse for ignoring it.
So faced with a case such as the raping and looting of Venezuela that has occurred under yet another "socialist" regime, whatever the arguments for or against the "legality" of this action, I don't think arguments from "international law" should be set first.
Law should be carefully considered, because nations do need common principles of action. But we must not pretend the nations of the world are an impartial jury, or that one can easily access the rulings of the Judge. (Who is generally ignored in such discussions, anyway.)
So how about judging the attack on Venezuela by its consequences?
Judging actions by effects seems natural. Monday morning quarterbacks across America do just that, after their football team loses. "The coach shouldn't have tried a pass on the Patriot goal line when Marshawn Lynch was available to run it in!" They say, after a painful (still, years later) Super Bowl loss.
"It's easy to judge after the fact," Pete Carroll might respond. "But you'd be criticizing me just as loudly if I'd tried a run, and it got stuffed at the one-yard line. My QB didn't throw many interceptions."
Formally, judging an act by its effects is called consequentialism. And one difficulty is one can never be sure what the consequences of a given action will turn out to be.
Will Venezuela be free? Or fight a civil war? Or maybe both? Will the government hang on to power? At least mellow out some? Hold elections? How honest will those elections be, and who will be elected? Will people starve? Or slowly become prosperous as oil is refined and sent to market? Will this scare China? Or give China motive to arm up even more quickly?
Those are just a few of the hundreds of questions that come to mind -- and probably no one knows the answers to any of them.
Obviously, one should consider the consequences of one's actions before taking them. But we are normally constrained by commandments -- "Thou shalt nots" -- which are easier to follow, and good for our souls, in part because they don't require us to predict the future. Because, again, we are not God.
Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil?
Yes, we'd better remember those. We must seek justice with Venezuela. The temptation simply to take must be restrained by law -- here it really is helpful.
Nevertheless, I think it is better to judge the attack on Venezuela mainly by its consequences, not by what the international lawyers may say. (Though they should have a voice.)
In a sense, this is unfair to Trump. One must act, as president, and one can never know all that will flow from one's action.
So I reminded my students a story they knew well, about a farmer named Sai Weng, whose horse ran away. His neighbor said "Too bad!" And Sai Weng said, "Who knows what is good or bad?" The horse led wild horses back, and the neighbor said "That's good!" Sai Weng's son broke his leg taming the horses, and the neighbor said, "Too bad!" Conscription agents came to take the son to the army, but left him, because he had a broken leg. "That's good!" And at each stage, Sai Weng recognized the weakness of consequentialism: we never know all that will flow from our actions, still less are we able to judge it all.
But hold your head up, Marco Rubio. Straighten your tie, Pete Hegseth. The buck stops here, Donald Trump.
For despite all that, I think it is right to judge this attack by its effects, whatever they turn out to be. Effect is a more pressing question than the perhaps equally unanswerable, "Does this violate international Law?"
This is the NFL. Winners go on. Losers take their horses and go home.
It is your job to do the impossible: to consider all the variables that factor into Power, Interest, Law, and Justice. And then to act so as to make the world a better place. You'll make mistakes. But if you take a bold action like this, it is your job to make sure it helps, and does not hurt, the nation you have accepted responsibility for leading, and yes, also the nation you have attacked, because that is part of our enlightened self-interest, and the justice of God.
May he guide you. It will not be easy.
