The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Washington’s characterisation of the action as a lawful and decisive mission stands in stark opposition to widespread condemnation from numerous nations, which have decried it as a flagrant violation of established international law.
Notably, the response from several key European allies has been marked by a conspicuous caution and ambiguity, further highlighting the geopolitical fissures this event has provoked.
Precedent of Disregard for Sovereignty
This alarming development finds echoes in a historical pattern where the post-war international order, largely shaped by the 1945 Yalta and Potsdam conferences and their emphasis on the inviolability of national borders, has been repeatedly undermined.
The 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Serbia, undertaken without explicit United Nations Security Council authorisation, is frequently cited as a precedent for bypassing multilateral sanction. Similarly, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, predicated on discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction, resulted in catastrophic loss of life and regional destabilisation.
In each instance, narratives of humanitarian intervention or law enforcement were deployed, yet analysts often discern underlying motives of strategic influence or resource control, met with rhetorical protest but limited concrete opposition from allied powers.
The current American intervention unfolds against this backdrop. President Donald Trump announced that a “large scale” raid had resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Hailing the mission’s success, Trump declared the United States would temporarily administer Venezuela’s oil-rich territory “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”
He asserted that major US oil companies would rehabilitate the nation’s decaying infrastructure, claiming any occupation “won’t cost us a penny” because it would be financed by the oil “money coming out of the ground.” Trump also explicitly dismissed opposition figure María Corina Machado, stating “she doesn’t have the support… or the respect within the country.”
Global Condemnation and Cautious Rebuke
The abduction of President Maduro, coupled with this rhetoric, sparked immediate and fierce condemnation, particularly within Latin America. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel denounced the operation as “state terrorism” and “a shocking violation of the norms of international law,” a sentiment amplified by reports of Cuban casualties.
President Trump further inflamed regional tensions by disparaging Colombia’s Gustavo Petro as “a sick man” who makes cocaine, musing that a military operation there “sounds good to me,” and speculating that Cuba’s government “looks like it’s ready to fall” on its own.
The administration’s expansive posture also triggered alarm beyond the hemisphere. The circulation of an image depicting Greenland under the US flag with the caption “soon” prompted a sharp rebuke from Danish authorities. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen asserted it “makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US taking over Greenland,” underscoring that the US “has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.”
The reaction from European institutions and major powers, however, has been markedly restrained. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated the EU “stands by the people of Venezuela and support[s] a peaceful and democratic transition,” adding that any solution “must respect international law and the UN Charter.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer similarly pledged the UK would “uphold international law.” Italy’s Giorgia Meloni offered a more nuanced position, arguing that “external military action is not the way to end totalitarian regimes,” but suggesting defensive intervention could be legitimate “against state entities that fuel and promote drug trafficking.”
France initially joined the criticism, with Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stating the raid “contravenes the principle of non-use of force that underpins international law.” Yet, Paris has since retreated to private diplomatic channels, refraining from advocating for tangible measures.
The European Union has not threatened sanctions against Washington, with most member states issuing only generic calls for dialogue and respect for the UN Charter.
In contrast, non-Western nations responded with unambiguous disapproval. China’s foreign ministry “firmly opposes” what it termed US “hegemonic behavior,” stating it “seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America.” Russia and other Venezuelan allies issued similarly strong condemnations.
The path forward remains fraught with uncertainty. With Maduro slated for prosecution in New York and his loyalists within Venezuela decrying the coup, the United Nations Security Council is poised to debate the operation’s legality.
The disparity in the international response is stark: whereas Russia’s actions in Ukraine triggered unprecedented sanctions and isolation, the United States currently faces only verbal reproach.
Credit: https://open.substack.com/pub/elidiaclagon/p/international-order-challenged-by
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Comments (0)