By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK has reportedly ceased sharing some intelligence with the US regarding suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean due to concerns over American strikes against these boats. The US has conducted numerous strikes, resulting in a significant number of fatalities, which have raised questions about potential breaches of international law. The UK, which possesses intelligence assets in the Caribbean and previously assisted the US in identifying vessels, is withholding information to avoid being complicit in actions that may be illegal. This move follows the UN human rights chief’s assessment that the strikes constitute extrajudicial killings, adding further scrutiny to the situation.
Read the original article here
The United Kingdom’s decision to halt some intelligence sharing with the United States over boat strikes in the Caribbean is a significant move, and frankly, it’s a bit unsettling. It highlights a breakdown in trust, particularly within the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance, which has historically been one of the closest partnerships globally. This isn’t just a minor disagreement; it’s a serious indicator of the UK’s waning confidence in the U.S.’s actions, especially regarding how the U.S. is handling the situation in Venezuela. The fact that the UK is willing to take this step speaks volumes about the depth of concern.
The decision is likely a response to the U.S.’s actions in the Caribbean, specifically the boat strikes. The U.S. is accused of using excessive force in these incidents, potentially killing innocent people under the guise of combating drug smuggling. If true, these strikes go far beyond acceptable limits, especially when those actions aren’t carried out with the proper care for human life and legal due process. The situation raises serious questions about U.S. foreign policy and the willingness of the U.S. to operate within the bounds of international law. The fact that these actions have been met with silence or worse from those in power within the U.S. is incredibly concerning.
It’s clear that the UK is not alone in its misgivings. The U.S.’s actions in Venezuela have been met with widespread criticism. The UK’s decision is a direct challenge to the U.S., a strong signal that the UK is no longer willing to be complicit in actions it considers unjust or illegal. This could be interpreted as a step toward taking a more independent stance on international affairs, especially when it comes to the U.S.’s interventions in other countries. It’s also important to note that the real reason may be in fact, oil, and the U.S.’s desire to control Venezuela’s oil resources.
The issue isn’t just about the boat strikes themselves. The underlying issue here may be the United States, as some have suggested, essentially acting like a rogue state. The United States has a history of interventionism, often disregarding international law and the consequences of its actions. From the Iraq War to interventions in other nations, the U.S. has often prioritized its own interests over those of others. In this case, the UK is drawing a line, saying “enough is enough,” and expressing its concerns over the U.S.’s actions.
The ramifications of this decision are significant. It could damage the “Five Eyes” alliance and affect the ability of the allies to share critical intelligence. It also sends a message to other countries, encouraging them to question the U.S.’s policies and actions, especially if the U.S. is not operating within the bounds of international law. The UK’s decision to act, even if limited in scope, is a powerful statement.
Of course, there are complexities. Some suggest that the drug war is fueling the boat strikes, and the situation is about controlling access to the illicit market. Others suggest that the true motivation is oil, as the U.S. is interested in gaining access to Venezuela’s oil reserves. Some are even going further and questioning the U.S.’s understanding of international law, and its alleged tolerance for actions taken by Israel. Whatever the reason, the UK is taking a stand.
It’s important to remember that relationships, even those between allies, can be strained when disagreements arise. The UK’s decision underscores the fact that international cooperation requires a degree of trust and respect for the rule of law. When that trust is eroded, cooperation becomes more difficult, and allies may have no choice but to re-evaluate their relationships.
In the end, the UK’s move is a clear message. The U.S. needs to re-evaluate its actions, its approach to international relations, and its respect for the rule of law. It’s a wake-up call, and the U.S. needs to listen.