In a significant rupture of a key security partnership, the British government has suspended the sharing of vital intelligence with the United States concerning suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean. This decisive move follows deep-seated concerns within Whitehall that American military strikes on these boats are illegal under international law.
The Trigger: A Deadly Strike in International Waters
The pivotal incident that prompted this intelligence freeze occurred in September. A US military operation targeted a boat in the Caribbean, situated in international waters, leading to the deaths of 11 individuals. Those on board were alleged members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, which the US designates as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
Following this event, former President Donald Trump defended the action, stating, ‘Obviously, they won’t do it again. There were massive amounts of drugs coming into our country to kill a lot of people, and everybody fully understands that.’ However, this justification did little to assuage UK officials.
Growing Concerns Over Complicity and Legality
Sources have indicated to CNN that UK officials now believe the September strike, along with others, constitutes a violation of international law. The collective death toll from these operations has reportedly reached 76 people. The UK's apprehension about being complicit in these potentially unlawful acts grew substantially after the deadly September incident.
These concerns were echoed at the highest levels of global human rights advocacy. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk condemned the strikes, characterising them as 'extrajudicial killing'. The US maintains a longstanding policy of not commenting on intelligence matters and has not publicly responded to the UK's decision to halt intelligence sharing.
A Drastic Shift in US Counter-Narcotics Policy
The current US approach marks a radical departure from established procedure. Traditionally, the US Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies would collaborate to intercept and board vessels suspected of drug trafficking, seizing any illicit cargo. Trump's deployment of the military to the Caribbean earlier this year signalled a new, more aggressive tactic.
This shift in strategy was bluntly summarised by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in September, who said the method now appears to be to 'blow them up, get rid of them'.
Legal experts have pointed out a critical factor: the US has not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention obligates signatories not to interfere with vessels in international waters, with very limited exceptions such as during a 'hot pursuit' from a nation's own territorial waters. Even in such cases, experts stress that force should only be used in a non-lethal manner.
While the US cites the Foreign Terrorist Organisation designation of Tren de Aragua as grounds for its lethal strikes, Professor Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told the BBC: ‘The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets. The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation.’
Adding further context, a report from InSight Crime based on two years of research concluded that, despite some involvement in drug smuggling, the Tren de Aragua gang is not primarily involved in large-scale cocaine trafficking.
