Trump’s blockade of sanctioned Venezuelan oil raises new questions about legality
The Trump administration says its blockade is narrowly tailored and does not target civilians, which would be an illegal act of war. But some experts say the seizure of sanctioned oil linked to leader Nicolas Maduro could prompt a military response from Venezuela and involve US forces in a new level of conflict that goes beyond their attacks on alleged drug boats.
“My biggest fear is that this is exactly how wars start and how conflicts spiral out of control,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. “And there are no adults in the room with this administration, no consultation with Congress. So I’m very concerned.”
Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, said using such aggressive tactics without congressional authority oversteps the bounds of international law and increasingly looks like a veiled attempt to provoke a Venezuelan response.
“We are concerned that we are entering an armed conflict,” Finkelstein said. “We’re upping the ante to try to get them to engage in aggression that would then justify an act of self-defense on our part.”
Republicans are largely fine with the campaign
Trump used the word “blockade” to describe his latest tactic in an escalating campaign of pressure against Maduro, who has been charged with narco-terrorism in the US and is now accused of using oil profits to finance the drug trade. While Trump has said it only applies to vessels facing US economic sanctions, the move has sparked outrage among Democrats and mostly shrugs, if not cheers, from Republicans.
Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Trump’s move to sanction oil tankers linked to Venezuela is no different than targeting Iranian oil. “Like the Iranian shadow tankers, I don’t have a problem with that,” McCaul said. “They are circumventing sanctions.
The president has declared that the US is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in an effort to curb the flow of drugs into American communities. US forces have attacked 28 alleged drug-smuggling ships since early September, killing at least 104 people. Trump has repeatedly promised more ground strikes, linking Maduro to cartels.
The campaign drew scrutiny in Congress, particularly after it was revealed that US forces had killed two survivors of the boat attack in an aftershock. But Republicans have so far repeatedly refused to require congressional approval for further military action in the region, blocking Democrats’ war powers resolutions.
Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, essentially ended his panel’s investigation into the Sept. 2 strike by saying Thursday that the entire campaign was being conducted “under good legal advice.”
Venezuela is pushing back
Trump announced the blockade on Tuesday, about a week after US forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. The South American country has the largest proven oil reserves in the world and relies heavily on the revenue to fuel its economy.
The US has imposed sanctions on Venezuela since 2005 due to concerns about corruption and criminal and anti-democratic activities. The first Trump administration expanded oil sanctions, forcing Maduro’s government to rely on a shadowy fleet of false-flag tankers to smuggle oil into global supply chains.
State oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, has been largely shut out of global oil markets due to US sanctions. It sells most of its exports at a significant discount on the black market in China.
Nicolas Maduro Guerra, Maduro’s son and lawmaker, on Thursday condemned Trump’s latest tactics and vowed to work with the private sector to limit any impact on the country’s oil-dependent economy. He acknowledged that it would not be an easy task.
“We value peace and dialogue, but the reality right now is that we are being threatened by the most powerful military in the world, and that is not something that should be taken lightly,” Maduro Guerra said.
Pentagon prefers the term “quarantine”
It was not immediately clear how the US planned to enact Trump’s order. But the navy has 11 ships in the region and a wide range of aircraft that can monitor maritime traffic entering and leaving Venezuela.
Trump may use the term “blockade,” but the Pentagon says officials prefer “quarantine.”
A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to outline internal policy considerations, said the blockade constitutes an act of war under international law, requiring formal declaration and enforcement of all inbound and outbound traffic. However, quarantine is a selective preventive security measure that targets a specific illegal activity.
Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was unsure of the legality of Trump’s blockade.
“They’re obviously blocking the oil industry, not the entire country,” said Smith, who represents parts of western Washington state. “How does that change things? I have to talk to some lawyers, but in general, a blockade is an act of war.”
The US has a long history of using naval blockades to pressure smaller powers, particularly in the 19th century era of “gunboat diplomacy”, sometimes provoking them into action that provokes an even greater American response.
But in recent decades, as the architecture of international law has evolved, successive US administrations have been careful not to use such naval shows of force because they are seen as punishing civilians — an illegal act of aggression outside of wartime.
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy called his naval cordon to counter the real threat — arms shipments from the Soviet Union — a “quarantine,” not a blockade.
Mark Nevitt, an Emory University law professor and former Navy judge advocate general, said there was a legal basis for the U.S. to board the ship and sixteen already sanctioned ships that are considered stateless or claim two states.
But a blockade, he said, is a “wartime naval operation and maneuver” designed to block the access of an enemy nation’s vessels and aircraft.
“I think the blockade is based on the false legal pretext that we are at war with narco-terrorists,” he said.
Nevitt added, “It seems almost like a junior varsity blockade where they’re trying to enforce the legal instrument of war, the blockade, but they’re only doing it selectively.”
Geoffrey Corn, a Texas Tech law professor who previously served as the military’s top adviser on the law of war and has criticized the Trump administration’s ship strikes, said he is not convinced the blockade is aimed at stoking conflict with Venezuela.
Instead, he suggested it could be aimed at escalating pressure on Maduro to relinquish power or encouraging his supporters to back away from him.
“You can look at it through the lens of, is this an administration trying to create a pretext for a broader conflict?” said Corn. “Or you can look at it as part of an overall campaign to pressure the Maduro regime to back down.”