Even as the largest warship in the world sits within striking distance of Caracas, debates continue over the morality and legality of Trump’s actions toward Venezuela. Different moral philosophies produce differing assessments of the situation. Some argue that international law must be followed, while others maintain that pragmatic support for the United States—not morality or legality—is what matters. Legally, without the mechanism provided in the 1945 UN Charter and approval from the UN Security Council, the use of force against any nation is prohibited by Article 2(4) of the Charter.
Despite the intent of Article 2(4) to deter wars and other uses of force, dozens of breaches by Security Council members have occurred. The Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan received no UN approval, nor did the US Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba or the invasion of Grenada. Nuclear-armed states clearly operate within a different moral and ethical framework than the lofty ideals espoused by the UN Charter. Small states like Trinidad and Tobago, however, remain dependent on international law and the UN system to ensure their sovereignty is respected, and cannot flout these rules without facing serious consequences.
While laypersons may accuse the US or Russia of simply being bullies, there is a philosophical framework for understanding how breaches of international law are rationalised. Ludwig August von Rochau, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Thucydides belong to the realist school of thought in war and international relations. They argue that morality should not guide decisions about war; states must act only in their self-interest to protect and promote security.
Rochau coined the term Realpolitik, which is often referenced by Vladimir Putin. It is the approach of conducting international relations and war based solely on pragmatic political ends rather than idealistic moral or philosophical goals. Most readers are familiar with the term Machiavellian, which prioritises power over morality. While not inherently evil, Machiavelli advocated doing good where possible but endorsed doing evil if necessary for the good of the state.
Hobbes viewed human nature as chaotic and locked in an eternal struggle for power; therefore, international relations should focus solely on power and security, not morality or legality. Thucydides, the Greek historian and general who died around 400 BC, is recognised as the father of realism. He argued that self-interest, not morality, dominates international relations. His History of the Peloponnesian War gave rise to the concept of the Thucydides Trap, in which the rise of a new power—such as China—threatens to displace an older hegemon like the United States, creating the risk of war.
Philosophers who oppose realism include Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, Immanuel Kant, and Mahatma Gandhi. Aquinas advocated Just War Theory, arguing that war must meet conditions of legitimate authority, just cause, and right intention, while emphasising proportionality. Grotius, the Dutch lawyer of the 17th century, is considered the father of modern international law and theorised that war is justified only in self-defence or to punish wrongdoing. Kant argued for the eventual abolition of war, holding that war is never morally good as it disrupts law and order, though he acknowledged it might sometimes be necessary. Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, rooted in nonviolence and passive resistance, successfully advocated India’s independence in 1947 and generally opposes all conflict, promoting dialogue and diplomacy instead.
For Trinidad and Tobago citizens who adhere to realist philosophy, Trump’s plan to oust Maduro could be seen as beneficial if it results in a stable government that halts the flow of drugs, weapons, and human trafficking into T&T. Conversely, moralists and pacifists would condemn any breach of international law or human rights.
It appears that the government of Trinidad and Tobago has adopted a realist stance, moving closer to the United States. Regardless of the outcome, the US remains the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere and T&T’s primary trading partner. Those embracing realism and Realpolitik may appear immoral to proponents of international law and pacifism—but time will reveal which philosophy is more prudent in our current Venezuelan dilemma.
