The world woke up on January 3 to news that should have shocked every person with a functioning moral compass. The United States launched a military operation in Venezuela, captured its sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife Cilia Flores, flew them out of the country and brought them to New York City. Soon after, US President Donald Trump publicly declared that the US would ‘run Venezuela’ during a transition period and that American oil companies would move in to take charge of the country’s oil reserves.
If this is not the law of the jungle in action, it is hard to imagine what is.
Strip away the diplomatic language, the legal jargon and the familiar rhetoric of ‘national security,’ and what remains is brutally simple: if you have the power, you can do whatever you like. International law, the UN Charter, and the very idea of sovereignty become optional when confronted with overwhelming military and economic might. The Stone Age principle of ‘might is right,’ which humanity supposedly left behind, is alive and well.
The capture of the head of state of a sovereign nation is among the gravest violations of international norms imaginable. The United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances such as self-defence or with explicit Security Council authorisation. No such authorisation exists in the case of Venezuela. Yet Washington proceeded regardless, and then openly announced its intention to administer the country and oversee its most valuable national resource.
This was not a covert operation reluctantly acknowledged. It was a public declaration of dominance.
For decades, the US has portrayed itself as the global guardian of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It has lectured adversaries and allies alike on the sanctity of sovereignty and the importance of respecting borders. It has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a blatant violation of international law and territorial integrity.
Those words now echo hollowly.
If violating Ukraine’s sovereignty is wrong, then violating Venezuela’s sovereignty cannot suddenly be right. International law does not change its meaning depending on the identity of the violator or the strategic value of the victim. A rules-based order that applies only to the weak is not an order at all; it is hierarchy enforced by force.
No serious observer believes that this operation was driven by a sudden concern for democracy or the welfare of the Venezuelan people. Venezuela sits atop the largest proven oil reserves in the world, accounting for roughly one-fifth of global reserves. President Trump’s own statements about US oil companies moving in to take care of Venezuelan oil stripped away any remaining pretence.
If Washington’s true mission were to rid the world of dictators, the target list would look very different. Vladimir Putin would not rule Russia. Kim Jong Un would not rule North Korea. Numerous authoritarian leaders allied to the West would not enjoy diplomatic protection and strategic indulgence. The uncomfortable truth is that dictatorship is tolerated or punished not on moral grounds, but on the basis of strategic convenience.
This action has created a dangerous precedent that will haunt the world, including the US itself. Power is not permanent. History offers no shortage of examples of nations that once dominated global affairs but now rely on others for protection. Empires do not collapse because they lack power; they collapse because they lose legitimacy.
By normalising the idea that a powerful country can seize another nation’s leader and assume control, Washington has helped erode the very foundations of global order. One day, another power will invoke the same logic. When that day comes, America will find it extraordinarily difficult to object.
What will the US say if China launches a military operation against Taiwan, citing national security or historical claims? On what moral or legal ground will Washington stand after demonstrating that sovereignty is conditional and force is an acceptable political tool?
If the past is any guide, shame will not be the limiting factor. Armed with unmatched military and economic power, the US has long believed it can act first and justify later. But no justification, however forcefully delivered, can obscure the central reality: this was a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter, instruments designed precisely to prevent the world from descending into chaos.
The world today is more dangerous than it was before Saturday. For weaker nations, the message is chilling. International law offers no guaranteed protection. Security lies not in legality, but in power – or in aligning with those who possess it.
It remains to be seen how events unfold in Venezuela, where the US has already asserted sweeping control, and how the rest of the world responds. The reaction within the US itself will be crucial. Ultimately, it is Congress, institutions and public opinion that must restrain executive overreach and prevent reckless adventurism from becoming standard policy.
For the good of Venezuela and for the stability of the international system, the US should step back from this dangerous path, return Nicolás Maduro to Venezuela, and pursue change through diplomacy rather than force. If Venezuela descends into chaos, as Iraq and Libya did after US-led interventions, the responsibility will not be shared. It will rest squarely with those who chose the jungle over the law.
Because once the world is governed by might alone, no country – not even the most powerful – can assume it will never be on the receiving end.
The writer is the City Editor, Daily Times of Bangladesh
