UN accuses US of violating human rights laws in Caribbean and Pacific airstrikes – World Socialist Web Site

Report on United States Military Operations in International Waters and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Executive Summary

This report details a series of military airstrikes conducted by United States armed forces against boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which have reportedly resulted in over 60 fatalities since early September. The stated justification for these operations is the combating of “narco-terrorism.” However, the actions have prompted significant criticism from the United Nations regarding violations of international human rights law. These events present a direct challenge to the international community’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions.

United Nations Response and International Law

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, has issued a formal statement condemning the airstrikes and calling for their immediate cessation. The UN’s position highlights a severe disconnect between the military actions and established international legal frameworks that are foundational to global peace and security, a cornerstone of the SDGs.

• The High Commissioner stated that the intentional use of lethal force is permissible only as a last resort against individuals posing an imminent threat to life.
• According to the UN, information provided by the U.S. government has been sparse and fails to demonstrate that the individuals targeted met this criterion.
• The statement emphasized that illicit drug trafficking is a law-enforcement matter that must be handled within the careful limits of international human rights law, not through extrajudicial military force.

Conflict with Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The reported military operations fundamentally undermine multiple targets within SDG 16, which is dedicated to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

1. Target 16.1 (Reduce Violence): The lethal strikes directly contradict the primary objective of significantly reducing all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
2. Target 16.3 (Promote Rule of Law): The use of extrajudicial force without due process or trial for the accused circumvents the rule of law at the international level. The reported decision not to prosecute survivors due to an inability to “satisfy the evidentiary burden” further underscores the abandonment of legal principles and access to justice.
3. Target 16.A (Strengthen Institutions): The lack of a transparent legal framework for these operations, as noted by domestic lawmakers, points to a weakening of accountable institutions, in direct opposition to the goal of strengthening them to prevent violence and combat crime in accordance with international law.

Regional Instability and Geopolitical Context

These operations are taking place within a context of broader regional tensions, including reports of potential U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. A significant U.S. naval deployment, including approximately 10,000 personnel and major assets like the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, is currently in the Southern Caribbean. Such military posturing contributes to regional instability, jeopardizing peace and security and hindering the cooperative spirit required for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Unilateral actions outside of internationally agreed-upon conventions, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, further erode the partnerships necessary for sustainable development.

Domestic Scrutiny and Lack of Legal Justification

Within the United States, concerns have been raised by members of Congress regarding the legality and oversight of the strikes. This lack of transparency and accountability is a critical failure in upholding the principles of “strong institutions” as envisioned in SDG 16.

• Briefings for lawmakers have reportedly been inadequate, with military legal experts failing to provide a clear legal rationale for the operations.
• According to Representative Sara Jacobs, military officials stated they “do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes.”
• This indicates a policy that deviates from principles of precision and accountability, increasing the risk to life and undermining the foundations of justice and human rights.

1. SDGs Addressed or Connected

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most relevant SDG as the article’s central theme revolves around the violation of peace, the breakdown of justice, and the failure of a state institution (the US government and its armed forces) to adhere to international law. The text details extrajudicial killings, a lack of due process, and actions that undermine the rule of law, all of which are core components of SDG 16.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article touches upon this goal by highlighting the unilateral actions of the United States and its disregard for international agreements and bodies. The US acting in violation of international law, as stated by the UN High Commissioner, and its status as a non-party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, demonstrates a failure to engage in the global partnership required to maintain international order and address transnational issues like drug trafficking through legal, cooperative means.

2. Specific Targets Identified

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   • The article directly addresses this target by reporting on a “continuing series of attacks” by US armed forces that have resulted in the deaths of “over 60 people.” This constitutes a clear example of violence and related death rates caused by state action. The UN High Commissioner’s call to “halt such attacks” is a direct appeal to achieve this target.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • This target is central to the article’s critique. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is quoted stating the airstrikes are a “violation of international human rights law.” He explicitly calls on Washington to “adhere to international law” and uphold “the fundamental rule of law principles of due process and fair trial.” The article further notes that survivors are not taken into custody or prosecuted because, as one representative was told, “they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden,” which is a direct failure to provide access to justice.

3. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.

   • The article implies a failure to meet this target by describing an inappropriate institutional response to a crime. The UN statement clarifies that illicit drug trafficking is a “law-enforcement matter, governed by the careful limits on lethal force.” The US, however, is using its military for extrajudicial killings under the pretext of combating “narco-terrorists” instead of using appropriate law enforcement and judicial institutions that respect human rights and the rule of law.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. Implied Indicator for Target 16.1 (related to 16.1.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide and 16.1.2: Conflict-related deaths).

   • The article provides a direct quantitative measure relevant to these indicators by stating, “Over 60 people have reportedly been killed in a continuing series of attacks.” This figure serves as a direct measure of deaths resulting from the violence described.

2. Implied Indicator for Target 16.3 (related to 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence… who reported their victimization to competent authorities).

   • The article implies a complete failure of this indicator. The victims are killed without any judicial process. For the survivors, it is stated that the military is “not taking into custody or bringing to trial the survivors of the strikes.” This indicates a 0% proportion of individuals being processed through a legitimate justice system, demonstrating a total lack of access to justice. The reason given, the inability to “satisfy the evidentiary burden,” further proves that the rule of law is being circumvented.

3. Implied Indicator for SDG 17 (related to commitment to multilateral agreements).

   • The article explicitly mentions that “The US is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” This serves as a clear indicator of a lack of commitment to a key international legal framework governing actions in international waters, which is the setting for the events described. This undermines the principle of global partnership and adherence to a rules-based international order.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wsws.org