Peter Espeut | Setting a bad example

Much has been written about the negative precedents being set by Donald Trump in his second term as president of the United States of America (USA).

The invasion of Venezuela by US troops to capture the sitting president of the country, Nicolás Maduro, on charges of narco-terrorism, has raised questions about the meaning of national sovereignty when a powerful country wishes to depose a ruler they don’t like (guilty or innocent). The fact that Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet is obviously an important motivating factor for ignoring national sovereignty.

In the past, covert operations might have been the preferred option, but the invasion of Panama in 1989 by the USA to capture the de facto ruler, General Manuel Noriega, was itself a precedent; Noriega was charged with racketeering, drug smuggling, and money laundering, and was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in a US prison.

National leaders – presidents and prime ministers – accused of crimes by other countries must now be wondering if or when their time might come. Any country with valuable natural resources must also wonder. And if the USA can do it, why not other powerful countries?

President Trump has not been shy of expressing his desire for the USA to acquire Greenland – part of the Kingdom of Denmark – because of its natural resources and for strategic (military) reasons. (The USA has been trying to acquire Greenland since at least 1868). The use of the US military has not been ruled out, although the USA has offered to purchase the island.

There is precedent for this too. In 1917 – during World War I – the USA bought the Danish West Indies from Denmark for US$25 million, thereby acquiring the islands of Saint Croix, Saint John, and Saint Thomas, along with 50 other surrounding minor islands and cays. The given reason was – again – strategic, as the USA wanted to establish a military base to protect the approach to the Panama Canal. (The USA had previously tried to buy the islands from as far back as 1860).

CHEAPER

But I suppose acquisition by a military invasion would be cheaper.

Invasion and annexation or colonisation by strong countries has a long history. That is how Spain, Portugal, England/UK, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., obtained their various colonies and possessions. Our own island was acquired from Spain by England after a land/sea invasion in 1655.

The precedents are legion, but since the founding of the United Nations in 1945 the practice has been frowned upon, and in fact, is a breach of international law.

That has not stopped Israel from invading and occupying the West Bank and the Golan Heights (1867), or Russia from invading and occupying Georgia (2008), the Crimea (2014) and the Donbas (2022).

Globally, invasions and threats of invasion abound! In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands (they call them Islas Malvinas), and were driven out by British troops with assistance from the USA. Since 1945 the USA has invaded more than 20 countries (Google it!)

The invasion of the Ukraine by Russia is under way. China claims Taiwan as its own, and threatens to invade. Nobody disbelieves that Trump’s USA might well invade Greenland (Denmark), Panama (to regain the canal) and Cuba (they will claim that they are recovering stolen property). And who else, pray tell?

The United Nations (UN) has not been able to prevent wars and invasions, but arguably has reduced their frequency, and certainly their legitimacy. The very existence of the UN is now under threat as the USA never joined several UN organizations (like the International Criminal Court, and the International Seabed Authority), and the Trump administration has withdrawn from over 30 UN affiliated organisations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO, and the UN Human Rights Council.

Does the USA qualify to be designated “a Rogue State”?

REPLACE THE UN

We hear that this month, President Trump launched an organisation to replace the UN – The Board of Peace – in which only the USA will have veto power. We need to see a complete list of those invited to join.

International law and various treaties prescribe how refugees and illegal migrants are to be treated, but that has not stopped President Trump from a terror campaign against migrants to the USA, or Jamaica from returning Haitians to their country without due process. Even small countries can act like imperialists!

Following the science, most of the nations of the world have signed on to international treaties, conventions and protocols banning or restricting environmentally damaging behaviour, and eschewing unsustainable development. So-called development has been the cause of overfishing, deforestation, species extinction, serious pollution, and climate change, all of which not only make the planet less habitable, but threaten the very existence of the human species. For the future of humanity, certain activities just should not be allowed, despite their profitability.

In order to prioritise increasing industrial development by the USA (and others), Donald Trump has rolled back decades of environmental protection legislation, putting all of us at risk. The precedents he is setting will embolden countries like Jamaica to further damage our own natural environment by permitting environmentally destructive activity.

Trump has discontinued prosecutions against himself and his friends, and has set the US Justice Department to investigate those who challenge him. This behaviour can only be described as immoral or amoral. Any constitutional system that allows this kind of corruption is deeply flawed. But it may yet catch on. You know how we love to “falla fashion”.

It may take the world many decades to recover from the presidency of the Donald.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com