This week, the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), a nongovernmental organization with consultative status before the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), published a document analyzing and rejecting U.S. President Donald Trump’s international policy toward Latin America.
More specifically, the AAJ statement reviews recent U.S. interventionist actions in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. The full text follows.
“The American Association of Jurists (AAJ) repudiates the escalation of President Trump’s interventionist policy in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the repeated violations of peaceful coexistence among sovereign nations, a fundamental pillar of international law.
Throughout the 20th century and the 21st, the U.S. has pursued an explicit policy of interventionism in Latin America. This has been grounded in the Monroe Doctrine of national security and expansionism, Truman’s model of Pan-Americanism, and the security perimeter theory.
These have been implemented through territorial invasions under the pretext of combating terrorism and drugs, privatizing war through the legalization of contractors, economically and politically isolating adversary countries, and recognizing coups, puppet governments and dictatorships. In this way, Washington built its economic hegemony over the region’s resources.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, there has been a new escalation. The White House has unleashed a confrontational foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean, jeopardizing peace in the region through interventionist actions, threats of military attacks, the creation of a migration crisis, and increased unilateral and illegal coercive measures aimed at provoking economic and humanitarian crises, such as raising import tariffs as a tool of domination. At the same time, it has deepened lawfare, media campaigns and covert cyber and psychological operations.
This unconventional and asymmetric war–given the disproportion between U.S. power and the targeted countries–was first evident when President Trump announced his intent to “recover” the Panama Canal, warning he did not rule out the use of military force to do so.
This was followed by the imperial provocation of changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, using tariffs as pressure, and then designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations–a move aimed at justifying future U.S. military interventions in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum reiterated that Mexico would not accept U.S. interference. Colombia faced similar threats. The Trump administration also tightened the decades-old economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.
https://twitter.com/SharonKyle00/status/1956803682428649899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1956803682428649899%7Ctwgr%5E8a6db7ea41c73417cc1fd2b2d127120d243bbeaa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net%2Famerican-association-of-jurists-condemns-trumps-latam-policy-as-interventionist%2F
The Case of Argentina
On July 22, U.S. ambassador-designate to Argentina Peter Lamelas publicly laid out an interventionist policy before the U.S. Senate, reflecting the intentions of the government that appointed him.
Lamelas said he would seek to neutralize relations between Chinese companies and Argentine provinces, labeling those ties as “corruption,” without legal or factual basis. He also stated he would work to support President Javier Milei, adding:
But my role will also be to go to the provinces and make sure we are alert to corruption and to support Milei and his administration in everything related to the AMIA bombing, and to ensure that Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner receives the justice she deserves.
The statement openly admitted the U.S. capacity to manipulate Argentina’s judiciary, which the AAJ said clearly lacks independence.
The Case of Brazil
On July 30, Trump announced a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports, effective August 1. In a letter to President Lula da Silva, he threatened that if Brazil did not halt the trial against former President Jair Bolsonaro–sentenced to prison for attempting a coup after his 2022 electoral defeat–the tariffs would be imposed.
That same day, the U.S. Treasury Department placed Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on the Magnitsky Act sanctions list, freezing his U.S. accounts and prohibiting financial transactions in the country, in addition to other penalties, for leading the process against Bolsonaro.
The AAJ said these measures are an intolerable attack on judicial independence and a blatant violation of the principle of nonintervention in internal affairs, tantamount to an attempted coup. They were widely condemned by Brazilian institutions and civil society.
As if global stage couldn’t get more chaotic, Miami Herald reports 🇻🇪 army is on high alert after VP got intel U.S. plans false flag w/Exxon and Guyana’s maritime border as pretext to invade Venezuela…wouldnt put it past Trump to use war to distract from disastrous trade policy pic.twitter.com/xrDzlUKwx8
— Unapologetically African🌍✨ (@Liberation_Blk) April 8, 2025
The Case of Venezuela
Just days after the Venezuelan government repatriated more than 236 young migrants kidnapped by the U.S. and sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador–described as having concentration camp-like conditions–and after cases of migrant children separated from their parents, the Trump administration took seemingly contradictory steps toward Venezuela.
On one hand, the Treasury Department authorized U.S. oil company Chevron to resume crude extraction, marketing and export operations in Venezuela and restore collaboration with state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
The following day, through the Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched a media offensive accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading the so-called The Cartel of the Suns–a propaganda construct of U.S. intelligence services now classified as a “terrorist organization.” Washington linked it to the Aragua Train criminal group, dismantled in Venezuela, and a faction of Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel.
These accusations, made without due process or judicial proceedings, came directly from government offices. At the same time, the U.S. offered a US$50 million reward for Maduro’s capture, amounting to what the AAJ called an “international manhunt.” Trump previously admitted to operations aimed at toppling Maduro and seizing Venezuela’s oil resources.
The AAJ argued that regardless of opinions on Venezuela’s internal situation, this latest attack–like those on Argentina and Brazil–is a flagrant violation of the principle of nonintervention, enshrined in international law to protect weaker states from the expansionist ambitions of powerful nations.
Conclusion
The AAJ recalled that at the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, held in Buenos Aires on Dec. 23, 1936, an Additional Protocol was signed whose Article 1 declared inadmissible “the intervention of any one of them, directly or indirectly, and for whatever reason, in the internal or external affairs of any of the others.”
This was later codified in the United Nations Charter, which also prohibits the threat of force in international relations. Article 2, paragraph 7, reads:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
The AAJ also cited General Assembly Resolution 375 (IV) of 1949, which states: “Every state has the duty to refrain from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another state.” This principle was reiterated in Resolution 2131 (XX), “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty,” and in Resolution 2625 (XXV), “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States.”
The group noted the relevance of Nicaragua v. United States (1986), in which the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Nicaragua against U.S. military and paramilitary activities. Washington ignored the ruling and withdrew its declaration of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction.
Likewise, the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), in Article 19, establishes: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.”
The AAJ reiterated that successive U.S. governments have been responsible for countless human rights violations, have not ratified most human rights treaties, and have refused to submit to international protection mechanisms. It said it is unacceptable for Washington to use human rights as a pretext for new and old forms of aggression, domination and appropriation.
The AAJ denounced that President Trump treats Latin America as his “backyard” and violates international law, endangering peace across the continent.
Therefore, the AAJ called on national and international jurist organizations to denounce Trump’s imperialist foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean; to reaffirm the right of peoples to decide their own destiny without interference, intervention or external threats; and to demand that their governments press the U.S. administration to immediately cease violations of the principles set out in the charters of the United Nations and the OAS.”
https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/1957559379772755998?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1957559379772755998%7Ctwgr%5E8a6db7ea41c73417cc1fd2b2d127120d243bbeaa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net%2Famerican-association-of-jurists-condemns-trumps-latam-policy-as-interventionist%2F