A test of sovereignty: What the U.S. strike means for the Global South

By Nazifa Jannat*  

On January 3, 2026, the international community was stunned by the announcement that the United States, under President Donald Trump, had carried out a military operation leading to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The intervention, which included air strikes in and around Caracas, has triggered serious concerns about the legality of the action, the motives behind it, and the implications for global sovereignty. It also raises difficult questions for smaller states, including Bangladesh, about how to safeguard their independence amid rapidly shifting geopolitical power.

The capture of Maduro has been framed by Washington as part of a broader “war on drugs,” positioning the Venezuelan leader as an international criminal whose arrest serves justice. Yet the invocation of narcotics enforcement as justification masks a deeper strategic agenda. The operation bears the hallmarks of a drive for geopolitical dominance and economic control, particularly in relation to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, rather than a neutral effort to uphold international law.

A Breach of International Law

From the perspective of international law, the U.S. military action appears to violate core principles enshrined in the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against sovereign states absent Security Council authorization or self-defence. Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States, and public evidence of a legitimate legal basis for intervention remains lacking. For many observers, the episode reflects a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, long used to justify American interference in Latin America under the pretext of maintaining hemispheric stability.

Statements from Venezuelan officials, including Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López, have condemned the operation as a flagrant breach of sovereignty that resulted in civilian casualties. While Washington points to corruption and drug trafficking allegations, the unilateral removal of a sitting foreign leader without multilateral sanction sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the norms governing relations between states.

The action also echoes earlier U.S. interventions in the region, including the 1989 invasion of Panama to depose Manuel Noriega. Such operations, justified in the name of law enforcement or regional order, often leave long-term instability in their wake while weakening global consensus against the unlawful use of force.

The Centrality of Oil

Any honest analysis of the U.S. move must grapple with Venezuela’s position as home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Trump’s post-operation remarks suggesting that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela for the time being — and the possibility of American companies stepping into the oil sector — reinforce perceptions that resource acquisition sits at the core of the strategy.

Economic sanctions, asset seizures, and the effective blockade of Venezuelan energy exports have already constrained the country’s ability to generate revenue. By pairing military force with economic isolation, Washington appears intent on reshaping the country’s political economy in ways favourable to U.S. interests. Historical parallels abound, from Iraq to Libya, where resource-rich states became theatres for major power intervention.

A Ripple Effect Beyond Latin America

The events in Venezuela are the culmination of years of political and economic pressure, including sanctions, diplomatic isolation and support for opposition movements. While cast as a victory for democracy, the realities on the ground point to a struggle over who controls the trajectory of a sovereign nation.

The implications extend beyond Latin America. The operation signals that the United States is prepared to take aggressive measures against governments that defy its geopolitical objectives. For countries such as Bangladesh, located in a region contoured by great-power rivalry, the episode illustrates the vulnerabilities faced by states that seek independent foreign policies. Even geographically distant nations are part of a broader system where unilateral interventions, once normalized, can spread.

The Need for Vigilance

The Venezuelan case underscores the need for states — particularly those in the Global South — to strengthen diplomatic, legal and institutional tools that protect sovereignty. This does not require rejecting relations with the United States or Western allies, but rather ensuring that cooperation does not translate into dependency or external dictate. Upholding international law remains a collective responsibility; its erosion ultimately weakens all but the most powerful.

The operation against Venezuela should prompt sober reflection. If a superpower can remove a leader of a sovereign state outside multilateral legal channels, the security of other nations becomes contingent not on law, but on alignment with geopolitical priorities. The international community must respond not through rhetoric but by defending legal frameworks that restrain unilateral violence.

The military intervention in Venezuela and the capture of President Maduro represent a serious escalation in American unilateralism, with oil and strategic influence at its core. It sets a troubling precedent that reverberates far beyond Latin America, threatening norms that protect weaker nations from external coercion. Countries like Bangladesh should pay close attention to these developments and push for a global order where sovereignty is respected and international law is upheld. Standing by nations facing unlawful interference is not only an act of solidarity — it is a defence of principles essential for a stable and just world.

---

*Journalism student at Syracuse University