US names its three biggest priorities for Venezuela after dramatic raid and Maduro capture… as unanswered questions remain

Marco Rubio has revealed America’s top three priorities after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – as unanswered questions spark confusion across both nations. 

The US Secretary of State discussed what the country hopes to accomplish following the detention of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Saturday. 

‘The first steps are securing what’s in the national interest of the United States and also beneficial to the people of Venezuela, and those are the things we are focused on right now,’ he said on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. 

‘No more drug trafficking, no more Iran [and] Hezbollah presence there.’

Rubio added that the US was also keen to make sure there was ‘no more using the oil industry to enrich all our adversaries.’ 

The Trump administration has alleged that Maduro is the leader of the Cartel de los Soles, a narco-terror organization that has taken control of the country.

It claims that Maduro, who has been Venezuela’s president since 2013, and his cartel associates have been flooding the US with illegal narcotics. 

In his second presidential term, Trump has ramped up his war on drugs, designating an increasing number of gangs as terrorist organizations. 

He had been targeting Venezuelan ships allegedly smuggling drugs from the country for months prior to Saturday’s raid. 

Rubio also referenced the presence and influence of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite terrorist group and political party, in the South American nation. 

Hezbollah is just one of many foreign agents and terror organizations that have infiltrated Venezuela. 

Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. The industry has deep ties to US rivals, including China, Iran and Russia. 

Venezuela has worked with these nations to dodge US sanctions. The countries have also invested billions into the oil sector, giving them increased economic and political influence. 

Donald Trump has outlined his intention to set up US oil companies in Venezuela. 

‘We’re going to have our very large US oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,’ he said on Saturday. 

US forces captured Maduro and Flores from their Caracas compound during a dramatic military operation involving air strikes across the capital city. 

About 40 military personnel and civilians died as a result. Donald Trump said that no Americans were killed.

Maduro and Flores now sit behind bars at the Metropolitan Correction Center in Brooklyn, New York, on narco-terrorism and drug trafficking charges. Still, critical details surrounding the ordeal remain cryptic. 

Is it lawful for the US to ‘run’ Venezuela? 

Trump has vowed to ‘run’ Venezuela, as he claims to have Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who has been named the nation’s interim leader, on America’s side, despite her public declaration that ‘never again will we be a colony of any empire.’

However, this idea has been debunked by experts who say it is simply unlawful for the US to take over Venezuela. 

‘This sounds like an illegal occupation under international law, and there is no authority for the president to do it under domestic law,’ Cardozo School of Law Professor Rebecca Ingber told The New York Times. 

‘It’s unclear what he has in mind, but presumably he’d need some funding from Congress to do it.’ 

Jeremy Paul, a professor at Northeastern University specializing in constitutional law, echoed this sentiment to Reuters: ‘You cannot say this was a law enforcement operation and then turn around and say now we need to run the country.

‘It just doesn’t make any sense.’

Did Maduro’s capture and extraction violate international law?

Maduro’s extradition to New York apparently violated the US-ratified United Nations Charter.

Article 2(4) of the treaty states that a country cannot use force against the sovereign territory of another nation without that nation’s consent, a basis for self-defense or the authorization of the UN Security Council.

The US did not have Venezuela’s consent, and the premise of the Maduro raid is not considered self-defense but a law enforcement operation. 

‘It is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications for transporting Maduro to the US, or for the attacks,’ University of Cambridge International Law Professor Marc Weller UK-based thinktank Chatham House wrote. 

‘There is no UN Security Council mandate that might authorize force. Clearly, this was not an instance of a US act of self-defense triggered by a prior or ongoing armed attack by Venezuela.’

‘The cornerstone to the UN Charter is settling disputes peaceably and resorting to the use of force as a last resort. This action violates that principle,’ Syracuse University College of Law Professor David M Crane told the Daily Mail.

Does the UN prohibition matter under US law?   

The US Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is considered the nation’s commander-in-chief. 

Presidents of both political parties have justified launching international military action when it was of national interest and/or of limited scope – often without a formal declaration of war from Congress. 

Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair magazine late last year that if Trump were to allow ‘some activity on land’ in Venezuela, he would need Congress to give him the go-ahead first. 

However, Rubio said that Congress was not notified about the Saturday operation. 

Experts have identified other legal qualms with the ordeal. 

‘Under domestic law, the President went against the National Security Act and the War Powers Act, which require notice to Congress due to Article I of the US Constitution, where only Congress can declare war,’ Crane told the Daily Mail.  

Will Trump face any repercussions from the international courts?

Under international law, there is a basis to penalize Trump for these actions, according to experts. 

However, the chances of it are unlikely, Crane said. 

‘The International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction over the US as a non-signatory to the Rome Statute and the US has veto power over a Security Council resolution,’ he explained. 

The Rome Statute is the fundamental treaty that created the ICC and its legal framework. 

It defines core crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes. 

The US did not sign off on the Rome Statute over concerns that it would give the court’s prosecutor ‘too much power unchecked,’ John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser for the National Security Council, told NPR. 

Regardless of the legal consequences, Crane said that the Venezuela raid, ‘politically and diplomatically, it is a disaster for the US.’ 

‘What moral standing we had left is now gone,’ he continued. ‘The US is moving towards a pariah state.’