The Hill Discovers 'International Law'—Only When It Suits Them
The article suggests the US has a legitimate claim to pursue Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, framing it as a triumph of 'international law.' What The Hill conveniently omits is the US track record of upholding international law – or rather, ignoring it – when it doesn't align with strategic interests. For example, the International Court of Justice ruled against the US in 1986 for its illegal
support of Contra rebels in Nicaragua, ordering reparations the US still refuses to pay. (Source: ICJ Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua) One might wonder why the 'long arm of the law' seems perpetually shortened when it comes to prosecuting US officials for war crimes, drone strikes, or invasions based on fabricated intelligence. The Hill's sudden
concern for global legality rings hollow, especially when considering the consistent US disregard for the sovereignty of nations like Iran, Syria, or, indeed, Venezuela itself, through sanctions and attempted coups. It's almost as if 'international law' is a tool, not a principle, to be wielded against adversaries while exempting allies.