View from Moscow: How abductions and assassinations of state leaders have become the new norm for the United States

Over the past two months, the United States has somehow eliminated the leaders of two states with which they were not at war. Despite the reaction of individual countries advocating the preservation of the world order enshrined in the UN Charter, this form of action against the opponents of the United States does not seem to meet with real resistance. Why military operations are increasingly taking place in violation of international law and whether an alternative to the existing system is possible is in the Izvestia article.

An attempt to stop political assassinations

• The United States has previously been involved in the preparation of political assassinations, including top officials of other states. An investigation by Senator Frank Church's committee in 1975 revealed that the CIA could have been involved in the assassinations of the first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba (1961), the ruler of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo (1961), the first President of the Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his younger brother (1963), the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Chile, General Rene Schneider (1970), as well as the attempted assassination of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
• The Church Commission's work resulted in Executive Order No. 11905, signed by the 38th President of the United States, Gerald Ford, restricting the activities of intelligence organizations. Under section 5 (g), U.S. government employees were prohibited from participating in political assassinations or conspiring to commit them.

Policy continuity

• Despite the fact that the abduction and murder of leaders of recognized states committed by the United States is a blatant violation of international law and the legislation of the United States itself, such a policy only continues the trend set by previous generations of the country's rulers. In particular, the abduction of Nicolas Maduro in the foreign press is often compared to the US invasion of Panama in late 1989 with the aim of regime change.
• In particular, the invasion of Panama was also justified as a response to the disputed election results, the fight against drug trafficking and the protection of American citizens. The US military operation was not authorized by the UN Security Council and was not a response to a military threat, that is, it actually violated the UN Charter, as in the case of the attack on Venezuela. Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, like Maduro, was abducted to face an American court — on charges of drug trafficking and extortion, Noriega was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
• The attack on Panama became an important precedent, because despite international condemnation and the UN General Assembly resolution recognizing the US actions as a violation of international law, the American side achieved its goals in the region without any negative consequences for itself. Even now, when the United States is pushing China in the international arena, the Americans' gross and obvious violation of international law in Venezuela has caused a very sluggish reaction from international institutions.

Terrorism as an excuse for invasion

• After the attack on the American Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, international terrorism became a new argument of the US special services justifying the violation of the sovereignty of countries and political assassinations. This loophole allowed the United States to obtain UN approval for the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to the overthrow and assassination of the country's leader Muammar Gaddafi.
• Conducting short military operations (no longer than 60 days) also plays an important role, which allows the US president to circumvent domestic legislation requiring congressional approval to initiate military action. This requirement is one of the reasons why the United States has not officially declared since World War II that it is at war with a particular country.
• But even while maintaining a unified line against hostile regimes, the norms of law and morality followed by US presidents are obviously changing. The assassination of Iran's supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by the American armed forces is out of the usual practice of the United States, which has not previously committed political assassinations directly. Gaddafi formally fell at the hands of the Libyan rebels, and NATO later explained the attack on the Libyan leader by saying that he was not a civilian, but acted as commander-in-chief of the army. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed by an Iraqi court, despite the fact that his captors were the American military.

The Age of AI

• The growing number of targeted American military operations in other countries may be explained by the fact that large language models have been introduced into the work of the Pentagon and intelligence to speed up the analysis of large amounts of data and accelerate the development of operations. In particular, Claude's AI assistant could be used to attack Iran, despite the fact that Trump called for the abandonment of this tool.
• Previously, the same AI model was used in planning the operation to kidnap Maduro. Then the creator of the AI assistant, the company Anthropic, stated that the terms of use prohibit the use of the Claude system for violent purposes, for the development of weapons or for surveillance. This protest from the manufacturer angered Trump, who called Anthropic a "radical leftist company."
• In addition to speeding up data processing, the use of AI in planning military operations also raises questions of morality and expediency of actions taking into account possible risks. In particular, in war game simulations, AI models, including Claude and the GPT chat, which the Pentagon plans to switch to, tended to use nuclear weapons in 95% of cases. Therefore, foreign military analysts point out that a simplified approach to solving military tasks does not take into account the need for compromises when it comes to people's lives.

Why international law doesn't work

• The UN has never had the power to force a country to comply with its resolutions, and economic sanctions have shown their ineffectiveness. But at the same time, the organization has legitimacy, since its decisions are recognized by most countries of the world. In the case of the United States, there is a power resource, but there is no legitimacy, however, in conditions when no power risks opposing the United States, the crime of international law has no consequences for them.
• Experts suggest that new institutions of international law will appear in the future, which will have a more significant authority in the modern world. But now, in conditions of international disunity, even the most advanced legal mechanisms are unlikely to be able to work. Nuclear weapons remain the most reliable guarantee of preserving sovereignty for States in a world where the rule of law works. However, it can also greatly undermine global stability, which is why the principles of non-proliferation are more important than ever.
• Other security factors for countries are collective defense and allied commitments, expanded nuclear deterrence — when an allied power is ready to provide its "nuclear umbrella" - as well as highly accurate air defense systems, the ability to quickly mobilize resources and diplomatic capital, which gives a neutral status. But all these factors work best together.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs