Curtis Ward | Implications of US military operations in the southern Caribbean

At the time of writing this article, US military strikes blew up five small boats in the southern Caribbean Sea between Venezuela and Trinidad and killed nearly 30 people. No evidence has been offered by the Trump administration to the American public or international community to justify these killings.

The victims of these summary executions are alleged by the US president to be trafficking in drugs from Venezuela to the US. But, so far, these are mere allegations. And, even if there is supporting evidence, it raises questions on whether extrajudicial killings are justified or legal in domestic or international law.

So far, the US government has provided no proof that those killed are drug traffickers or that they are tied to Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro as alleged. But, even if they were, only large scale drug trafficking is deemed to be a capital offence in US criminal law, and, so far, no proof has been offered to suggest that the victims of US bombings in the southern Caribbean Sea fall into this category.

Extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers or other criminal violators are not sanctioned by law in a democracy, including US law. Neither are such killings sanctioned under international criminal law. These killings are seen by many legal observers as just that – extrajudicial killings.

The Trump administration skirts the law by designating drug traffickers as terrorists and adding a new wartime legal dimension by describing them as ‘unlawful combatants’. Eight drug trafficking groups were designated by the US State Department in February 2025, as foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs), including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration claims to be tied to President Maduro.

FIRST TIME

This is the first time in US history that drug traffickers have been designated as FTOs. Hence justifying the use of military force to kill them as has been the practice of killing terrorists since 9/11. Given the perpetual war on terrorism, first declared by former President George W. Bush, the Trump administration does not see the need to capture drug traffickers and bring them to justice. In the US war on terrorism, extrajudicial killings of terrorists have become the norm. The US government has used drone attacks to kill terrorists in many parts of the world.

Yet, use of deadly military forces to kill alleged drug traffickers has evoked widespread concern, not merely for the killings but questions arise concerning the legitimate use of the War Powers Act (WPA) to justify the use of the military and declaring war against them — a la the war on terrorism. The drumbeat of opposition is emanating primarily from human rights groups, Democratic Party members of Congress, and from legal experts who challenge this use of the WPA as an abuse of presidential powers. The legislators complain that the president has not briefed the Congress and provided justification as required by law whenever invoking use of the WPA.

Other than the International Criminal Court (ICC), which does not have jurisdiction over the United States which is not a party to the ICC’s Statute, there is no international body except the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with the authority to act on this issue. But it can’t. The veto power held by the United States blocks actions against the US by the UNSC on all matters. The same applies to the other four veto-holding permanent members of the UNSC — China, France, Russian Federation (Russia), and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).

This is an issue to be resolved internally between the president, the Congress and the judiciary. Civil society groups are weighing in to pressure the three branches of the US government, particularly the US Congress. However, the Republican-controlled Senate has already rejected a Democrat-sponsored resolution to block the president’s use of the WPA without congressional approval. The resolution failed mostly on party-line votes with only two Republican Senators — Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski — voting with the Democrats, and John Fetterman, a Democrat, voting with the Republicans.

EXPRESSING ALARM

On October 8, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), joined over 60 other organisations in “expressing alarm at the repeated extrajudicial killings of unidentified civilians in the Caribbean through US strikes and calling on Congress to block further such military action in the region”.

CIVIC’s US Director, Annie Shiel, noted that the US government had “summarily executed over 20 civilians in the Caribbean with no accountability or end in sight”. She said, “These unauthorised strikes violate fundamental principles of human rights and US law and risk escalation toward a conflict that would devastate communities across the region.” This sentiment is growing but, amid the dynamics of a news-busy environment, the issue is not receiving as much media attention as it should.

Implications for the Caribbean will be grave, should this potential conflict situation escalate beyond the killing of alleged drug traffickers — designated terrorists. The concerns raised for the safety of fishermen and occupants of small leisure crafts in the Caribbean are justified. Actions by US military forces place Caribbean citizens in the line of fire. This is an issue on which governments in the region cannot remain silent in their diplomatic exchanges with the Trump administration, and they should not hesitate to raise their concerns publicly. CARICOM governments must speak in unison on this issue and not allow themselves to be divided and used as pawns.

Large amounts of drugs, mostly cocaine, from South America to the US and Europe transit the waters of the northern Caribbean, including in the vicinity of Jamaica. Strikes targeting alleged drug boats in the Southern Caribbean Sea only and not elsewhere in the Caribbean region will confirm the real intentions — it is not to stop drug trafficking but a precursor to regime change in Venezuela.

Removing Maduro in Venezuela was at the centre of the first Trump administration’s regional policy. The failed experiment to replace Maduro with Juan Guaidó divided CARICOM states in 2019-2020. They should have learned from those policy mistakes and not repeat them. This time, the implications could be much wider and long-lasting.

The safety of fishermen and tourist leisure craft, which are plentiful in the Caribbean Sea, are valid concerns. CARICOM governments cannot straddle the fence in silence. They can express their concerns without aligning with either side. But speaking up is imperative.

The US build-up of military assets in the region is not necessary for drone attacks on small boats but is a precursor to much broader military objectives. It signals a large military operation to effect regime change in Venezuela. Ending drug trafficking in the region might be a noble cause but the process of regime change will destabilise Venezuela and the region. It will threaten the safety of the international supply chain. It will also strain geopolitical relationships and Caribbean regional security.

Curtis Ward is former ambassador of Jamaica to the United Nations, with special responsibility for Security Council affairs. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com