The use of force by the US in Venezuela raises doubts about the legitimacy of its actions
“The fact that the US action flouts international law related to state sovereignty and humanitarian rights protocols has been highlighted worldwide and even within the US — but to little avail. The Trump doctrine (Donroe is specific to Latin America) boils down to bludgeoning any interlocutor who does not toe the “Donald line”, and the use of tariffs as a weapon is all too familiar.”
The outcome of the UN Security Council’s emergency meeting on the US military operation, which resulted in the outrageous abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, was predictable. Strategic timidity in the face of the intimidation unleashed by US President Donald Trump is the dominant orientation of the global community. The famed horseshoe table did not issue any statement. Given that the spotlight was on the US, with its veto power as a permanent member of the UNSC, Washington would not have allowed any censure of its Operation Absolute Resolve.
Panama was subjected to a similar action in 1989. There are notable parallels between the US capture of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega on January 3, 1990, and the kidnapping of the Venezuelan President on the same day in 2026. The latter is the most direct US military intervention in Latin America since the Panama operation.
In both cases, heads of state — sitting (Maduro) and de facto (Noriega) — have been indicted on federal drug trafficking charges; Noriega for racketeering and cocaine smuggling, and Maduro for narco-terrorism and related conspiracies that were deemed inimical to US national security. This action is being interpreted as the first step to implement the new doctrine unveiled by President Trump that builds on the 1823 Monroe doctrine and has been dubbed the Donroe doctrine.
However, notwithstanding Trump’s assertion that Latin American affairs are now a top US security priority and that he would authorize military action and intervention at will, rumblings of dissent were evident at the UNSC’s January 5 meeting.
The deliberations reflected the widespread international condemnation of the US action as a violation of international law, sovereignty and the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against a state’s territorial integrity or political independence. Despite the distinctive backdrop, UN Secretary-General António Guterres was not present at the meeting; his statement, which was read out by an official, emphasized that “the power of the law must prevail” and called for inclusive democratic dialogue respecting human rights and Venezuela’s sovereignty. To his credit, Guterres was the first to condemn the US action and voiced the overwhelming global shock and anguish.
At the UNSC meeting, two of the permanent members, Russia and China, along with Brazil, Colombia (which made a request for the meeting), Cuba and Mexico denounced the operation as an act of aggression, armed attack or “imperialist” intervention. Some demanded Maduro’s immediate release and rejected unilateral actions.
Even US allies such as France and Denmark criticized the move for undermining the principles of international order, though some acknowledged Maduro’s repressive rule and the need to address drug trafficking and human rights issues through lawful means.
In response, Mike Waltz, US Ambassador to the UN, defended the action as a “surgical law enforcement operation” against indicted “narco-terrorists”, not an act of war or occupation, and stated that the US had no plans to occupy Venezuela. This was not accepted by the global community. It is instructive that no nation, except Argentina and Ecuador, has unambiguously endorsed the belligerent US action against Maduro.
The fact that the US action flouts international law related to state sovereignty and humanitarian rights protocols has been highlighted worldwide and even within the US — but to little avail. The Trump doctrine (Donroe is specific to Latin America) boils down to bludgeoning any interlocutor who does not toe the “Donald line”, and the use of tariffs as a weapon is all too familiar.
Hence, most nations have chosen prudence in response to the US military operation. India, Japan and many other countries have issued anodyne statements that do not directly condemn the US action or uphold any normative principle of international law.
The operation has raised disturbing questions. If the US arrogates unto itself the right to abduct/kidnap the head of another state for perceived transgression of American laws, is any global leader safe from such predatory action? Will leaders attending the UN General Assembly meeting in New York be sanguine about their own safety?
The use of force by the US in Venezuela raises doubts about the legitimacy of its actions. At least 115 deaths were reported from US military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats (including go-fast boats and semi-submersibles) in the months leading to Operation Absolute Resolve.
These strikes were part of a campaign that began in early September 2025 and targeted vessels primarily in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. A total of 36 vessels were struck on the suspicion of carrying drugs. Should the US military have been part of such an operation against unarmed small vessels? The January 3 operation itself reportedly caused 70-80 fatalities, mostly Venezuelan and Cuban personnel tasked to protect Maduro.
There is little doubt that the US has an impressive array of trans-border military capability that includes delivery of lethal precision-guided ordnance, pinpoint surveillance accuracy, strategic airlift and overwhelming cyber capabilities. All this was demonstrated both in Abbottabad (the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011) and in the audacious capture of President Maduro. But Trump’s resolve to discipline Venezuela will remain tainted for blurring the Weberian dictum about the legitimacy of the use of military force.
More such resolute actions have been mooted — Colombia, Cuba, Iran and even Mexico have been threatened by Trump. Fall in line or else face US ire. Greenland may provide the ultimate Alice in Wonderland scenario. If the next Trump move is to ‘acquire’ Greenland, and Denmark invokes Article VI of the NATO provisions, it is possible that troops of the US military will defend a NATO ally against the occupying US forces!
Welcome to Trumpland, and all hail Emperor Donroe!
(C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies)