Work Statement: This article is published only on Toutiao, and reproduction is prohibited.

Recently, US President Trump submitted a notice to Congress, declaring that the United States has entered a "non-international armed conflict" against Latin American drug cartels, not against any country. In other words, according to Trump's definition, the US is at war with "drug terrorist organizations."

This is an unprecedented statement. For decades, although the US has conducted military strikes, cross-border arrests, and covert operations against drug cartels, it has never before elevated this fight to the level of a "war," using the serious legal concept of "non-international armed conflict" from international law. This move immediately caused a storm in the US political arena and the international community.

From Smuggling Ship Attacks to "Armed Conflict"

The trigger for the incident was several military strikes in the Caribbean Sea. According to the US Department of Defense, in September alone, the US military launched three lethal attacks on speedboats smuggling drugs, including one on September 2, which sank a vessel controlled by the "Aragua Train" gang from Venezuela, killing 11 people.

The "Aragua Train" gang was officially designated as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the US earlier this year. The Trump administration's logic is that since they are defined as terrorists, their targeting falls under the "war on terrorism."

In a classified memo sent to Congress, Trump referred to these drug traffickers as "unlawful combatants" whose actions "constitute an armed attack on the United States." He emphasized that these groups "are well-funded, organized, violent, and have quasi-military capabilities, allowing them to act with impunity."

In short, Trump is placing drug cartels on the same legal framework as al-Qaeda and ISIS, using the laws of war rather than criminal law to deal with them.

The Sensitive Legal Boundary

The problem is that this declaration touches on the gray area of both US and international law.

The term "non-international armed conflict" was initially a legal concept set in the 20th century to define "civil wars," referring to conflicts between a country and non-state armed groups. However, after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Bush administration expanded this concept to the global campaign against al-Qaeda. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that this war was legal, giving the US government the power to indefinitely detain terror suspects.

Trump now applies the same logic but targets drug cartels instead. The question is whether drug trafficking qualifies as an "armed attack." International law has no clear precedent for this.

Democratic lawmakers have questioned whether this military action violates the War Powers Act. This law was enacted after the Vietnam War, requiring the president to obtain congressional approval before taking military action. However, practically every president has bypassed it; Obama in Libya and Clinton in Kosovo did so as well.

This time, Trump's action is seen as another expansion of executive power. Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated outright: "Drug cartels are indeed despicable, but they should be dealt with by law enforcement, not through war."

Trump's Political Calculations

From a political perspective, Trump's actions are not purely about "anti-drug" efforts.

First, it is closely related to domestic elections. Just a few months ago, members of the "Aragua Train" gang occupied an apartment in Aurora, Colorado, causing a serious incident that became a focus during the campaign. Trump immediately seized the opportunity, vowing to "declare war on drug cartels" and promising to remove them from the US as terrorists.

Second, it is an enhancement of his own "tough image." For a long time, Trump has emphasized that he differs from Democrats, who would not use "empty talk" or "judicial procedures" to tackle transnational crime, but rather use the most direct military force. By declaring an "armed conflict," he not only provides legal legitimacy for military strikes but also shapes a "decisive leader" image politically.

However, this "war against drug cartels" is not without risks.

First, it may open a dangerous precedent for the US government. If drug trafficking can be defined as an "armed attack," then future forms of transnational crime—such as human trafficking or cyberattacks—may also fall into the "war" framework. This will greatly expand the president's war powers.

Second, Democratic lawmakers and human rights organizations worry that this could lead to widespread human rights violations. According to the laws of war, the US can indefinitely detain suspects without trial. In other words, if Trump's logic is accepted, the US government might handle drug suspects in a similar way to "Guantanamo-style" detention.

Third, the legality of the military action itself is questionable. The White House has yet to explain how the US military confirmed that the people on the sunken ships were gang members rather than ordinary smugglers or innocent people. If there are mistaken kills, it could spark huge controversy in the international community.

Looking back, the US has long had a tendency to militarize drug issues. In the 1980s, President Reagan launched the "War on Drugs," but the core methods at the time were still law enforcement, sanctions, and diplomatic cooperation. Today, Trump directly declared a "armed conflict," clearly pushing this logic to an extreme.

It is worth noting that this is part of Trump's ongoing push for "unconventional security policies" during his term. From building walls, implementing bans, to using the military to combat drug dealers, he has consistently emphasized militarizing domestic security issues and using this approach to rally voters.

The Future Outlook

The biggest issue now is the reaction from Congress. If the Democrats strongly counterattack and demand a reevaluation of Trump's actions, then this "war against drug cartels" may face legal challenges.

But if Trump gains enough political support, his actions could reshape the US's foreign security policy. Like the "war on terrorism" in the Bush era, this "war on drugs" could become part of the US's future security strategy and have a profound impact on the international order.

No matter what, Trump's declaration has sparked a significant debate. Some see it as a necessary and decisive move to protect the US, while others fear it is a dangerous signal of presidential power getting out of control and moving toward a "borderless war."

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7556874546146509352/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Like/Dislike] buttons below.