【Text by Observer Net, Wang Yi】The United States has recently faced criticism from the international community due to its military actions in the Caribbean Sea. According to foreign media reports such as Reuters and The New York Times, on November 12 local time, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio attended the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Niagara region, Ontario, Canada, and claimed that he did not hear any objections to the U.S. military actions in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean at the meeting.

However, Rubio still defended the U.S.-backed "operation against extreme drug traffickers," stating that Europeans had no right to decide how the U.S. defends its national security. He also sarcastically remarked that they "wanted us to send nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles to defend Europe," but when the U.S. deployed aircraft carriers in the Western Hemisphere, they somehow opposed it.

Reuters reported that the main focus of this G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting was on the situations in Ukraine and Gaza, but French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot protested during the meeting's opening against the U.S. military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels, calling them "a violation of international law" and expressing concern for France's territorial security in the region.

The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kallas, also stated to the media after the meeting that the U.S. strike action lacked legal basis and could only be justified as self-defense or require a UN Security Council resolution to validate its legitimacy.

On November 12 local time, the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held in Niagara region, Ontario, Canada. IC Photo

When asked about Kallas's comments, Rubio responded, "I think the EU has no right to decide what international law is," and said, "no one (in the closed-door session) raised this issue with me."

The New York Times commented that Rubio seemed indifferent to the casualties caused by the U.S. attacks, insisting that the U.S. was "under threat from these terrorist organizations," and therefore the actions were completely legal. He also added that the drugs did not only flow into the U.S., but also entered Europe through Venezuela, "so perhaps they should thank us."

The day before, CNN reported that the UK considered the U.S. military strike operations "illegal" and did not want to be its "accomplice," so it had stopped sharing intelligence about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea with the U.S.

Rubio denied this, calling the report "fake news," and emphasized that the U.S. and UK have a "very strong" partnership, "there has been no change, and nothing has happened that could in any way prevent us from doing what we are doing, and we have not asked any country for assistance in our actions."

As the host of the meeting, Canadian Foreign Minister Anand cautiously stated that Canada did participate in the U.S. anti-drug cooperation, but "we did not participate" in the U.S. military actions in the waters of Latin America. Regarding whether these strikes were legal, she said, "that is within the judgment of the U.S. government."

The G7 Foreign Ministers stated in the meeting statement that member states reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen cooperation to prevent illegal drug smuggling, but the statement did not specifically mention the escalating military actions by the U.S. near the waters of Latin America.

Since late August, the U.S. has deployed approximately 10,000 soldiers and eight warships in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific coast of Latin America, conducting at least 19 strike operations, resulting in the deaths of at least 76 suspected drug traffickers, causing strong controversy both inside and outside the U.S.

The Trump administration insisted that these actions targeted "extreme drug traffickers," but provided no evidence to support this claim. They previously cited Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify the actions, claiming that the actions were necessary for "self-defense." However, this article requires the relevant country to immediately formally notify the UN Security Council.

According to a report by The Washington Post on November 12, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had drafted a confidential opinion in the summer that determined military personnel involved in these strike operations "enjoy criminal immunity," ensuring they would not be held accountable under international law.

Analysts pointed out that the OLC's move was an attempt to ease concerns about potential criminal liability for U.S. military personnel, reminiscent of similar actions taken by the Bush administration - at that time, the office addressed legal concerns from military lawyers regarding the use of harsh methods in interrogating terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks in the same manner.

Sarah Harrison, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group and former Pentagon lawyer, said that by defining the military operation as a "war," the Trump administration could argue that ordinary criminal law provisions, such as murder, do not apply. "If the U.S. is in a state of war, then the first use of lethal force is legal," she further explained, adding that Trump was actually "artificially creating a war to circumvent the restrictions on the use of lethal force during peacetime, such as murder charges."

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Net. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7572145068863160832/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【like/dislike】 buttons below.