2 months ago
37
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The question for Manila now is how it can concretely call out its primary defense ally for violating the very legal framework that's supposed to protect it from its main threat — China — in the South China Sea.
MANILA, Philippines — For years, Washington has cast itself as chief guardian of a “rules-based international order,” a phrase Manila invokes regularly when China harasses its vessels in the South China Sea.
But events that have unfolded and are still unfolding in Venezuela — and the United States’ long record of selective adherence to international law — are sharpening an old question in the Philippines: How firm are those rules when the US' interests are at stake?
On January 3, US forces carried out an operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his forced transfer to the US for trial. Washington is justifying the action as one driven by security concerns. But already, observers and other world leaders are saying it violated Venezuela’s sovereignty and bypassed international rules designed to prevent exactly this kind of intervention.
US President Donald Trump has declared the US would "run the country" until further notice, and that American oil companies would take over Venezuela's petroleum sector, which happens to be the largest proven reserves in the world.
Two days later, the Philippines joined other countries in reacting to the capture of Maduro. The Department of Foreign Affairs issued a carefully worded statement. It expressed concern over "the evolving events in Venezuela and its consequential impact on peace and stability in the region as well as on the rules-based international order," stressing familiar principles: sovereign equality of states, peaceful dispute resolution, prohibition against using force, and non-interference in domestic affairs.
These are precisely the principles the Philippines has been wielding against China's aggressive actions in the South China Sea — the same principles the US has publicly backed Manila in defending. Yet Washington had just bombed another country's capital, seized its president, and declared it would govern a sovereign nation, all without UN Security Council authorization or even notifying the US Congress in advance.
Why is this controversial?
Under international law, the use of force inside another country is generally prohibited unless it is carried out in self-defense or authorized by the powerful UN Security Council.
This was not the case for the US' actions in Venezuela.
The office of the UN Secretary General has flagged the potential implications of the US' unilateral action, which "constitute a dangerous precedent" for the region.
"The Secretary-General continues to emphasize the importance of full respect - by all - of international law, including the UN Charter," a statement by the office of the Secretary General said.
"He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected," it added.
That concern has been echoed by many governments. Brazil called the military strikes and capture “a very serious affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty." China said it was “deeply shocked” by what it described as a “blatant use of force” against a sovereign state. Colombia called the actions “an assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America.
Has the US done this before?
The United States has a long history of intervening abroad, particularly after the second world war. Reports show these interventions have taken many forms, from full-scale military action to covert operations and economic pressure.
It is the "natural tendency" for a world power like the US to act solely according to their interests, using international rules when those rules align with their goals and sidelining them when they do not, said Manny Mogato, a veteran defense journalist.
Powerful countries — such as Russia, China, and the United States — have been violating UN rules for years whenever it aligns with their objectives. "When they want to, they use military might to intervene," Mogato told Philstar.com.
The US invaded Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 2003, participated in the NATO bombing of Libya in 2011, and spent two decades maintaining its invasion of Afghanistan. Each of these interventions came with its own justification, ranging from counter-terrorism and humanitarian protection to stamping out drug trafficking and supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Scholars and investigations have already found that many of these US military operations violated the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force. An independent commission established by the Dutch government concluded that the 2003 Iraq invasion contravened international law.
None of these violations resulted in consequences for Washington.
What it means for the Philippines
This episode in Venezuela is showing the Philippines the fragility of international law, if it exists in practice at all, in the Trump administration's pursuit of its economic and political interests.
The Philippines relies on international law — specifically UN conventions and the 2016 arbitral ruling — to support its maritime claims in the West Philippine Sea and to defend itself against larger states, namely China.
Political scientist Cleve Arguelles says weakening of international norms tends to leave middle and smaller powers more exposed.
“Any weakening of international law and norms — especially by actors like the US — negatively affects us,” Arguelles told Philstar.com. “We rely on it so much for many of our claims. Whether China, ICC, [or] climate change … When might makes right replaces international law and norms, the weaker a middle power like us gets.”
The Philippines has staked enormous political and diplomatic capital on the proposition that international law can protect it from more powerful neighbors who want to assume ownership of waters within its exclusive economic zone.
For Mogato, the US' military intervention in Venezuela also sends a message to China, which is its rival power in the Indo-Pacific region.
"Actually, it's a warning. 'If we can do this to another country, we can do it to you.' Don't step on our interests. And what is the US' interest in the Indo-Pacific? It's freedom of navigation [given] the trillions in trade that pass through the South China Sea every year."
The ghost of 1986
The Philippines and Venezuela don't appear to have much in common at first glance, as both countries belong to different continents and run different political systems. But the two countries have colonial parallels.
Both are former Spanish colonies that gained independence only to find themselves in the orbit of American power. Both have now experienced direct US intervention in their domestic politics — in the Philippines' case, outright colonization at the turn of the 20th century, followed by decades of military influence and political backing for Ferdinand Marcos Sr., whose authoritarian rule was sustained in part by Washington’s strategic support during the Cold War.
After demonstrations forced Marcos to flee to exile in the US, the new administration under Corazon Aquino appeared to move to reduce the direct military footprint of the United States, and people's sentiments against the presence of US troops here led to the eventual closure of the major US bases in 1992.
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Manila has since restored and expanded elements of that old defense relationship. In 2023, his government agreed with Washington to extend the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) — allowing US forces to rotate through more Philippine military bases and store equipment at these facilities. The number of EDCA sites rose to nine, from the original five, with additional locations in provinces facing Taiwan and the West Philippine Sea.
Could it happen here?
Could the US also engineer a regime change in the Philippines if its strategic interests diverge sharply under Trump?
"Yes, it's possible," Mogato said, adding that history shows Washington also played a role in toppling Marcos Sr.'s dictatorship in 1986.
"It's about interests. And the important factor here is the interest of the US, not the interest of the Philippines," Mogato added.
Trump — in both his first and second terms — has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to abandon allies when he judges that American interests would be better served elsewhere. During his first term, he threatened to withdraw from NATO and questioned US commitments to defend South Korea.
His second term has already raised serious questions about continued American support for Ukraine. Observers say Trump approaches foreign policy transactionally, viewing alliances as deals that can be renegotiated or trashed rather than as enduring commitments based on shared values.
In Venezuela's case, the Trump administration justified Maduro's capture based on a 2020 federal indictment charging him with narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons offenses. He is alleged to have conspired with Colombian rebels to flood the United States with cocaine. Maduro denies this.
