In a move that has shocked the international community and drawn swift condemnation from global capitals, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on January 3, 2026, that a covert military operation had successfully “ousted” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and “extradited” him—along with his wife—from their home in Caracas to face trial in New York on drug and weapons charges. Simultaneously, Trump declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela “properly” and “professionally” until a transition of power could be arranged.
This extraordinary assertion of unilateral authority—framed in triumphalist rhetoric rather than legal or moral reasoning—raises profound questions under both international law and ethical governance. Worse still, it comes just days after Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a leader indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The juxtaposition is jarring and revealing: while the U.S. president embraces an accused perpetrator of mass civilian atrocities, he orchestrates a military-style raid to depose and abduct the head of state of a sovereign nation—all under the thin veneer of enforcing “justice.”
A Clear Violation of International Law
The United Nations Charter, the bedrock of modern international law, enshrines two core principles: the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)) and the right of states to sovereignty and territorial integrity. The U.S. operation in Venezuela—described by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot as an act that “infringes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law”—constitutes a textbook violation of both.
Even if one accepts U.S. allegations that Maduro’s government is corrupt or authoritarian (a view held by many human rights groups and Western governments), that does not grant any state the legal authority to invade another, kidnap its sitting president, or impose a transitional administration. There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing such action. There is no invitation from Venezuela’s legitimate government—only a furious denunciation from Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who was swiftly sworn in as interim leader and demanded Maduro’s immediate return.
Moreover, the notion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela echoes colonial-era paternalism. As Trump boasted: “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world going in, invest billions and billions of dollars.” The implicit promise—that Venezuelans will benefit—is undercut by the fact that the U.S. is acting without their consent, installing no democratically legitimate authority, and asserting control over one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice
The ethical bankruptcy of this intervention becomes even starker when viewed alongside U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. Just days before the Venezuela raid, Trump hosted Netanyahu—a man now subject to an ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes, including the intentional starvation of civilians and indiscriminate bombing of residential areas in Gaza. The ICC’s charges also cite Netanyahu’s role in a policy that may amount to crimes against humanity.
Yet instead of distancing himself from an indicted ally, Trump rolled out the red carpet. No military raids. No extradition demands. No declarations that Israel must be “run properly” until new leadership emerges.
This double standard exposes a deeply entrenched pattern: international law applies only to adversaries, never to allies—or to the United States itself. When the U.S. acts unilaterally, it calls it “strength.” When others do the same, it’s “aggression.” This selective enforcement erodes the very foundations of a rules-based order and fuels global cynicism about Western claims to moral leadership.
The Dangerous Precedent of Legitimacy as a Weapon
The Trump administration justifies its actions by claiming Maduro’s 2024 re-election was “illegitimate.” But if contested elections become grounds for foreign military intervention and the kidnapping of heads of state, then no leader is safe—not even American presidents.
Consider this: Trump’s own 2016 election was widely scrutinized for foreign interference (as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies), voter suppression, and unprecedented foreign meddling. If Canada, Germany, or France adopted Trump’s logic, they could theoretically declare him “illegitimate” and, in the name of democracy, dispatch special forces to Mar-a-Lago to “extradite” him to The Hague.
Of course, no democratic nation would do such a thing—because they respect sovereignty, due process, and legal norms. The absurdity of the hypothetical underscores the recklessness of Trump’s Venezuela gambit. It is not a defense of Maduro to point out that regime change by abduction is lawless. It is a defense of international order.
Supremacism Masquerading as Strategy
At its core, this operation reflects what can only be described as imperial supremacism: the belief that the United States, by virtue of its military and economic power, is exempt from the rules that bind others. Trump’s declaration—“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might in American history”—is not a statement of policy but of domination.
Such actions are not only illegal; they are strategically foolish. They alienate allies (the European Union expressed “great concern”), embolden adversaries like Russia and China (both of whom condemned the raid as “armed aggression”), and invite reciprocal logic in other regions. If the U.S. can remove Maduro, why can’t China “liberate” Taiwan? Why can’t Russia “stabilize” the Baltics? The erosion of legal norms is contagious.
A Reckless Abandonment of Principle
The United States once positioned itself as a champion of sovereignty, self-determination, and the rule of law—even if imperfectly. Trump’s Venezuela intervention represents a full-throated rejection of those ideals in favor of raw power politics. By hosting an ICC-indicted leader while simultaneously abducting another on disputed legal grounds, the administration has revealed its moral compass to be calibrated not by justice, but by allegiance.
Reactions from around the world to the Kidnapping of the President of Venezuela
People around the world are protesting the attack on Venezuela
Posts
No comments:
Write comments