A growing international chorus, led by the United Nations’ human rights chief, is condemning the United States’ recent airstrikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Critics argue that “Operation Southern Spear,” launched in early September 2025, represents a dangerous expansion of the American drug war that violates international law and risks normalizing extrajudicial killings.
US Escalates Maritime Campaign with “Operation Southern Spear”
The US military campaign, formally announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has seen a significant increase in airstrikes against vessels allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking. These operations, spearheaded by US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) and a newly formed Joint Task Force Southern Spear, employ a hybrid fleet of manned and unmanned systems. Starting in the Caribbean, the campaign expanded to the Eastern Pacific in October 2025. The US administration, led by President Donald Trump, has framed these actions as essential national security measures to combat “narco-terrorists” and protect American lives from drugs that kill tens of thousands annually. The US alleges that targeted vessels were linked to designated groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN), though public evidence to support these claims has been sparsely provided.
UN Human Rights Chief Denounces Strikes as “Extrajudicial Killings”
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk issued a strong condemnation on October 31, 2025, stating that the US airstrikes “violate international human rights law” and “find no justification in international law.” He urged the US to immediately halt these operations, emphasizing that lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against an imminent threat to life—a standard he believes has not been met. Reports indicate that these continuing series of attacks have resulted in the deaths of at least 83 people in 21 strikes on 22 vessels by mid-November 2025, with incidents occurring in both the Caribbean and Pacific waters.
Türk called for prompt, independent, and transparent investigations into the strikes, highlighting that countering drug trafficking is a law enforcement matter governed by careful limits on lethal force, not a justification for military action and summary executions. This view is echoed by other UN experts and international legal scholars who argue that the US actions lack a proper legal basis and amount to extrajudicial killings.
Global Commission on Drug Policy Calls for Reforms
The Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP) has also voiced significant concerns, warning that the maritime strikes reflect a broader pattern of punitive and militarized drug policies that have historically failed. The GCDP points to billions spent annually on enforcement-heavy approaches that persist alongside increased violence, rights abuses, and instability. The commission is urging the US to cease the strikes, conduct thorough investigations, and adopt reforms centered on decriminalization, harm reduction, and development-focused efforts that address the root causes of the drug trade.
Regional Alarm and Geopolitical Tensions
Latin American leaders have expressed alarm over the US military operations, warning that foreign intervention risks repeating a history of detrimental interference in the region. While some, like the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, have voiced support, many others, including the presidents of Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, have criticized the strikes. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has firmly rejected any threat of US military intervention within its borders, citing historical territorial losses. Venezuela has vehemently condemned the strikes, accusing the US of fabricating a war and posing a threat to regional peace. Russia has also condemned the US operations as a violation of international law, aligning itself with Venezuela and challenging US influence in the region.
Debates on Legality, Effectiveness, and Alternatives
Legal experts widely dispute the US administration’s justification for using lethal military force. Critics argue that drug smuggling is a criminal activity, not an act of war, and that international maritime law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), necessitates adherence to due process, flag state consent for interdiction, and the use of non-lethal force where possible. The US assertion of self-defense against an “armed attack” is questioned, as drug trafficking does not typically meet this threshold. Furthermore, the lack of public evidence and the designation of drug cartels as “terrorists” to justify military action are points of contention.
The effectiveness of these lethal strikes is also being questioned. Some analysts suggest that the vessels targeted in the Caribbean are primarily moving cocaine to Europe, not necessarily impacting the US drug problem, particularly concerning fentanyl, which is largely trafficked overland from Mexico. Moreover, destroying suspected drug boats eliminates opportunities for gathering crucial intelligence and evidence through interrogation and forensic analysis of seized contraband.
As the international community calls for adherence to international law and human rights, the debate over the US military’s aggressive stance in the Caribbean and Pacific continues to unfold, raising profound questions about the future of drug interdiction strategies and regional stability.