The United Kingdom has stopped sharing intelligence with the United States about vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Caribbean , after concluding that US military strikes against suspected traffickers violate international law , CNN reported , citing information leaked through sources familiar with the matter.
For years, the United Kingdom —which maintains intelligence bases in several Caribbean territories— had collaborated with Washington to track and intercept vessels linked to drug trafficking , in coordination with the Joint Interagency Task Force South , based in Florida.
However, according to CNN, London decided to suspend cooperation more than a month ago , concerned about the use of British information in lethal attacks , in which at least 76 people were killed.
British officials consider these actions to be extrajudicial executions and violations of International Humanitarian Law , a position that coincides with that expressed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk , as well as the Governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia, among others.
“The attacks violate international law and amount to extrajudicial executions ,” Türk stated in October, a statement with which London fully agrees , according to the sources cited.
Before the policy change, the fight against drug trafficking was the responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies , focusing on arrests and seizures . Under this system, cartel members and drug traffickers were treated as criminals entitled to due process.
But since September, the Trump administration has authorized the U.S. military to use lethal force , arguing that the alleged drug traffickers pose an imminent threat and are “enemy combatants” in an “armed conflict” with the U.S.
A memo sent to Congress and a classified opinion from the Justice Department support that approach, while Trump designated several drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations ,” which, according to the White House, would justify the military operation.
However, international law experts argue that the terrorist designation does not automatically authorize the use of lethal force , and that many of the vessels attacked were at anchor or did not pose an immediate threat , according to reports obtained by CNN.
Defense sources revealed that Admiral Alvin Holsey , head of the U.S. Southern Command , submitted his resignation after expressing doubts about the legality of the attacks in a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Furthermore, lawyers from the Department of Defense and active and retired military advisors have stated that the attacks do not appear to comply with International Law of Armed Conflict , although the Pentagon has denied any internal disagreement.
Canada , another strategic ally of Washington in Operation Caribbean , also distanced itself from the US attacks , although it will continue its anti-drug cooperation with the US Coast Guard. Diplomatic sources indicated that Ottawa requested guarantees that its intelligence would not be used to select targets for lethal attacks .
The Canadian Ministry of Defence stated that the activities of the Armed Forces in the Caribbean are “separate and distinct” from the military operations promoted by Washington, reaffirming that it will not participate in actions that contravene international law .
Maybe I’m being naive or wishful thinking, but between this and the similar one you posted about Colombia, I want to take this as a sign that the world is starting to realize that at this stage 1) there’s more cost than benefit in doing whatever the US wants and 2) the US is floundering to maintain its global hold with increasingly overt strong-arming (paper tiger style).
Between that and its ties to israel (well more like, it is the reason israel is able to exist at all), which is also making itself extremely unpopular internationally to say the least, perhaps some dominoes are starting to fall in a way that will isolate the US. Its admin has already been pushing itself in that direction with the tariff nonsense and turning empire inward, and the US is so financialized (I believe is the term) that it has little to offer as industrial/productive output. So most of what it has remaining as power is saying “we’ll attack you if you don’t comply and try to cut you out of global trade in various ways.” So far, countries seem to be taking that threat seriously as they should, but are also trying to work through it by postponing open warfare as much as they can, so that they are ready should the US go truly off the rails.
And as fucked up as the rest of the western empire is, do they really have the military power to make it worth sticking through every whim of brazen terrorism that the US gets up to, with the mask of liberalism in tatters? They already have their own tendrils of legacy colonialism and empire to maintain as it is, without also having to hold up the US’s cloak as it trails around everywhere courting hot wars it can’t handle.
I suppose the less hopeful take would be that they’re just doing the liberal mask thing of “I don’t condone this” while continuing to support it behind closed doors. But even if it is a lie, saying it aloud still paints a picture of an empire that is not willing to stand in public alliance to the extent that it may otherwise be willing to do.