The American attack on Venezuela violates every principle of international law that the collective West claims to uphold. The response from the European Union—“we are monitoring the situation”—exposes the hollowness of these claims. WhatsApp gossipers may celebrate this as an act of “bravery,” but what kind of bravery is it to intimidate a neighbour that is neither large in size nor strong in military power?
The American action resembles a classic gangster operation: the kidnapping of the president of an independent and sovereign state. Increasingly, this has become the standard model adopted by the United States and its Western allies, including Israel, with complete impunity. Backed by enormous corporate power, they control global resources, and as their own reserves decline, they are turning aggressively toward smaller countries rich in rare earth minerals and energy.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee must also answer an uncomfortable question. Does it endorse the American attack on Venezuela, having earlier legitimised the prospect of such aggression by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an individual who openly advocated the bombing of Caracas and pledged her country’s natural resources at the altar of American corporate oligarchs? This is not about democracy or human rights; it is an open war to capture resources and control economies at a time when the United States is losing economic ground to China and military dominance to Russia.
Anyone confused about why the US or Donald Trump claims to be keen on “ending the war” in Ukraine should look closely at his style of governance. Gaza offers a parallel. After genocide and destruction, Gaza is being handed over to American corporations, many closely linked to Trump’s own circle. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland and American bombing in Nigeria point toward a wider strategic arc that may well move next toward Iran. Trump and his team today represent one of the gravest threats to world peace. Under the banner of ending wars, Trump is openly advancing business interests. He failed to impose an outcome in the Russia–Ukraine war only because Russia possesses nuclear weapons; without them, the US and Europe would likely have destroyed Russia long ago.
A pattern emerges clearly from decades of US military interventions. Under one pretext or another, the goal is to decapitate leadership, eliminate ambitious national figures, and install pliant rulers who convert their countries into vassal states of Washington. All this is done in the name of “democracy” and the “rule of law.” Trump’s mocking of Putin for taking too long in Ukraine reflects this mindset: the American method relies on carpet bombing, assassinating leadership, and installing handpicked proxies. The welfare of the bombed country has never been a concern; securing profits for corporate oligarchs has always been the priority.
The attack on Venezuela is likely to boomerang. Latin America is not the Middle East or Afghanistan. Capturing a country’s leader may be militarily feasible, but it does not guarantee acceptance. On the contrary, it will fuel mass protests and deepen anti-American sentiment, increasing US isolation globally. Trump may boast of making America “great again,” but his policies are isolating it instead. He came to power promising to resolve domestic crises and avoid unnecessary foreign conflicts. American taxpayers have already paid a heavy price for resources squandered abroad in the name of “national interest,” which in reality serves only corporate interests entrenched within the two corporatised political parties.
Globally, outside Europe, American influence is increasingly unwelcome. China, Russia, India, and Turkey are becoming more attractive partners for the Global South. One thing is certain: the Global South will begin organising itself more formally. We will see more military alliances and, inevitably, renewed attempts to acquire nuclear technology.
When the United States bombed Iran, many concluded that had Iran possessed nuclear weapons like North Korea, Washington would have thought twice. This raises a deeply troubling question: are countries safe only if they possess nuclear deterrence? The global anti-nuclear movement never demanded that the big nuclear powers dismantle their arsenals; instead, it has consistently punished weaker nations for pursuing nuclear capability. If powerful states can simply fly into another country, arrest its head of state, and drag him before their courts, then every nation will logically seek nuclear-armed missiles for protection.
History reinforces this lesson. Dictatorship was condemned, and the fall of the Soviet Union was celebrated. Yet while the Soviet Union existed, the United States thought carefully before engaging in direct confrontation. Leaders like Stalin or Khrushchev would have pushed crises into America’s own backyard, as seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. That standoff ultimately forced the US to back away from direct intervention in Cuba, despite countless CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Today, the Soviet Union is gone and Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine, yet Trump’s actions have triggered a new crisis, uniting much of South America against growing American hegemonic ambitions.
Two developments remain puzzling. First, the visit of a Chinese delegation to President Nicolás Maduro shortly before his capture by American special forces. Second, whether Russia or President Vladimir Putin had advance knowledge of the operation. Major powers usually know what is coming. Russia’s muted response to Iran, limited to routine foreign ministry statements, has not inspired confidence. This raises speculation—however uncomfortable—about whether Trump and Putin have reached an understanding: Russia consolidating gains in Ukraine while the US tightens its grip over South America. While this appears unlikely, given Russia’s sensitivity to threats against its own leadership, the questions remain unanswered.
This brings us to the central issue: what happens after such a blatant violation of international law? Will the International Court of Justice issue an arrest warrant against Donald Trump? Will regime change through military force become the global norm? Can Russia do the same in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe? Will China adopt similar tactics toward Taiwan? Could India contemplate such actions in its neighbourhood?
These are not abstract questions. We are inching toward a global crisis that demands stronger international mechanisms for conflict resolution. Peace cannot be imposed through bullying. Venezuela will be a test case. Its people are on the streets, protesting this outrageous abuse of power. The coming days will reveal whether corporate-driven American warfare can defeat popular will in Venezuela and across Latin America. The shape of the new world order is being forged now. One can only hope that people’s power prevails, that national sovereignty is respected, and that the world seriously considers reshaping the United Nations to restore justice, peace, and stability. Otherwise, uncertainty will inevitably slide into violence and war—outcomes that humanity must avoid at all costs.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments