By Uzma Ehtasham
The alleged US operation against Venezuela, described by Caracas and its allies as the unlawful abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, has torn open a familiar but unresolved wound in global politics. It is not simply the fate of one leader, however controversial, that has unsettled capitals and streets across continents. It is the broader implication that power, when exercised without constraint, can still override law, sovereignty and the fragile norms that are meant to govern international conduct. From Latin America to Europe and within the United States itself, the reaction was immediate and visceral. Protesters gathered in major cities not only to denounce what they saw as American aggression but to challenge the logic behind it.
Donald Trump’s remarks about “controlling” Venezuela struck a raw nerve, reviving memories of an era when regime change was openly pursued as a tool of foreign policy. The chants of “No war on Venezuela” outside the White House, and the more provocative calls for Trump’s arrest in Times Square, reflected a growing unease that Washington was once again asserting a right to act above the rules it claims to defend. The response from the United Nations was measured but telling. António Guterres’ expression of deep concern, and his warning that recent developments showed little respect for international law or the UN charter, spoke to a wider anxiety within multilateral institutions. The emergency meeting of the security council underlined the seriousness of the moment, yet it also highlighted the limits of the international system.
When a permanent member is accused of acting unilaterally, the machinery designed to uphold collective security struggles to move beyond statements of alarm. Inside Venezuela, the crisis triggered an extraordinary constitutional moment. The supreme court’s decision to appoint Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president, while stopping short of formally removing Maduro, was an attempt to project stability in the face of shock. Rodríguez’s televised address, in which she denounced what she called armed aggression and insisted that Venezuela would never become another country’s colony, was as much a message to domestic audiences as to the outside world. By framing Maduro as a kidnapped president rather than a deposed one, the government sought to preserve continuity and legitimacy, even as uncertainty deepened.
The reports that Maduro had been flown to New York and detained in Brooklyn on charges related to drugs and terrorism only added to the controversy. Washington’s reluctance to clearly confirm or deny these accounts has fueled suspicion rather than clarity. For critics, the silence suggests either indifference to international opinion or a calculation that outrage will fade. For supporters of the action, it may reflect confidence that the legal case against Maduro, long pursued in US courts, justifies extraordinary measures. Either way, ambiguity has become a tool in itself, leaving the global community to speculate about facts that should be transparent.
China’s swift demand for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife signaled that the fallout would not be confined to the western hemisphere. Beijing’s framing of the arrest as a flagrant breach of international law, and its call for dialogue rather than overthrow, aligned with its broader argument that sovereignty should be inviolable. Russia, though more circumspect in its public response, has echoed similar concerns in the past. Together, these reactions point to a sharpening divide between powers that view unilateral enforcement as destabilizing and those that see it as a necessary assertion of order. At the heart of the dispute lies an old question that has never been satisfactorily answered: who, if anyone, has the authority to enforce international norms, and at what cost?
The United States has long positioned itself as a guardian of a rules-based order, yet its record is riddled with exceptions carved out in the name of national interest. Critics argue that this selective application of principles erodes their legitimacy. If sovereignty can be overridden when convenient, they ask, what protection remains for smaller or weaker states? Supporters of robust action counter that figures like Maduro have themselves hollowed out sovereignty through repression, corruption and alleged criminality. In this view, international law should not become a shield for impunity. Yet even if one accepts that argument, the method matters.
The spectacle of a sitting president allegedly seized by foreign forces sets a precedent that is difficult to contain. Today it is Venezuela; tomorrow it could be another state whose leadership falls foul of a powerful adversary. The line between accountability and coercion becomes perilously thin. The muted effectiveness of the UN response has only reinforced a sense of paralysis. The security council, divided along familiar lines, appears ill-equipped to confront actions by its most powerful members. This vacuum invites alternative forms of resistance, from street protests to diplomatic maneuvering by rival powers. None of these, however, offers a clear mechanism for resolving the immediate crisis or restoring confidence in international norms.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
