U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his home in Caracas early Saturday morning and transported him out of the country, according to reports. President Donald Trump announced that Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, will face federal narco-terrorism charges in New York.
Maduro’s Capture and International Response
The operation, which unfolded over months with what has been described as shifting and shaky justifications, has drawn swift and sharp condemnation from across the political spectrum. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the strikes an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said the attack “crossed an unacceptable line” and set an “extremely dangerous precedent”. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stated the strikes were in “clear violation” of the UN Charter.
Even traditional U.S. allies expressed discomfort. France’s foreign minister said the operation contravened the “principle of non-use of force that underpins international law” and that lasting political solutions cannot be “imposed by the outside”. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” about the “dangerous precedent” the United States was setting and the rules of international law not being respected.
A History of US Intervention in Latin America
Venezuela is not the first country in the region to see its leader overthrown or seized with direct U.S. involvement. In 1953, the British government removed the democratically elected government of Cheddi Jagan in British Guiana (now Guyana) after just 133 days, believing his reforms would threaten British business interests. A decade later, the CIA conducted a covert operation to destabilize Jagan’s later administration, culminating in rigged 1964 elections.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson sent more than 22,000 U.S. troops to the Dominican Republic to prevent the return of former President Juan Bosch, overthrown in a 1963 coup. Following the overthrow of Grenada’s Prime Minister Maurice Bishop in 1983, President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion, citing the need to protect U.S. medical students and prevent a “Soviet-Cuban colony”.
In December 1989, President George H.W. Bush launched an invasion of Panama involving about 24,000 U.S. troops to remove General Manuel Noriega, who was subsequently flown to the United States, tried, and imprisoned. In 2004, Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from power and flown to Africa in what he described as a U.S.-orchestrated coup.
Why Venezuela’s Case is Different
The Maduro operation is distinct from previous interventions due to Venezuela’s size – with a population of some 30 million people and significant armed forces – and the current global context. The country has spent years preparing for a possible U.S. invasion. Scholars have warned that repeated violations of the UN Charter by the United States were eroding the rules governing the use of force, and Venezuela may represent a point of collapse.
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state under Article 2(4).
Regional Consequences
The immediate consequences for Latin America are already being felt, with Colombia moving troops to its border with Venezuela and Guyana activating its own security plans. Trump has said the U.S. will “run” Venezuela until a “safe transition” is complete, though analysts question Washington’s appetite for an open-ended commitment. Venezuela’s defence minister has pledged to continue to fight against what he called “criminal aggression”.
The operation has also deepened existing divisions in Latin America over Venezuela, following Maduro’s 2024 election results, which were contested by the opposition. These fault lines have made a coordinated regional response to the Trump administration’s actions impossible.
The broader risk is that Venezuela sets a precedent for other actors. If Washington can seize a head of state without legal sanction, others may be emboldened to do the same.
Maduro’s removal may or may not bring the political change Trump desires, but the manner of his removal has damaged the architecture of international law. If sovereignty can be set aside and heads of state can be abducted without UN approval, the world has returned to one governed by force – not the law, leaving no state truly secure.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
