The recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US forces has sent shockwaves around the globe, sparking intense debate about the legitimacy and implications of this bold move. After weeks of grandstanding and provoking Venezuela on 3rd January, US President Donald Trump announced that Maduro had been apprehended in a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela, citing allegations of narco-terrorism and electoral manipulation.
The operation, which involved US Special Forces and the Delta Force, has been widely condemned and rightly so as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and a breach of international law. Many world leaders, including those from Latin America, have expressed concern and outrage, warning that this sets a dangerous precedent for global politics. Mexico’s president called it a “dangerous precedent,” while Brazil’s Lula said it was “an unacceptable line” for Washington to cross.
Critics argue that the US action is driven by a desire to control Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and counter the influence of rival powers like China and Russia in the region. Venezuela has been quietly building alliances with these nations, drawing closer to Moscow and Beijing amid US sanctions. Trump’s administration has framed the capture as a blow to narco-terrorism, but many see it as a move to reassert US dominance in the Latin American Hemisphere.
Trump says the US will “run” Venezuela under a transitional arrangement. However, Maduro’s vice president and ministers are still in charge and the military are still rallying behind him. Opposition leader María Corina Machado described Maduro’s ousting as the “hour of freedom”, but Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, insisted he remains the legitimate leader. This is clearly a recipe for conflict.
This aggressive move by the US risks undermining international law and encouraging unilateral actions by powerful nations. As one analyst noted, “Framing warfare as global policing… could normalise coercive intervention” and reshape global expectations. The US action in Venezuela is imperialistic.
Since the mid-19th century, America has intervened in its continental neighbours not only through economic pressure but also militarily, with a long list of invasions, occupations and, in the case most closely resembling the current situation, the capture of Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989.
All decent countries in the world that believe in the rule of law as an international order should condemn this American action lest such brigandage becomes the new norm.
