Dr Catherine Faragallah
Specialist in International Relations
In an unprecedented development in the modern era, the world awoke to the US administration carrying out a military operation in Venezuela, the Latin American state, arresting its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, and transferring them by air outside Venezuela to stand trial in the United States. Indeed, the first court sessions for the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife began in New York, where they were charged with engaging in terrorist activities linked to drug trafficking, supplying gangs with weapons, and conspiring against the United States – charges that Maduro and his wife have denied.
What happened constitutes a blatant violation of international law. The United States shows little regard for United Nations resolutions or the Security Council. Washington did not stop at arresting President Nicolás Maduro and pursuing him through the US judicial system; rather, the conflict has reignited within a political and economic struggle that goes beyond the individual of the president to strike at Venezuelan state sovereignty, its oil wealth, and its regional relations. The issue is no longer merely a dispute between Washington and Caracas; it has become a stark example of how law and economic power are employed in international conflicts.
The arrest of Maduro is a political narrative rather than a legal one. Despite the seriousness of the accusations, no rulings have been issued by a competent international court, rendering them closer to political allegations cloaked in legal cover. Washington’s claim that it does not recognise the legitimacy of Maduro – asserting that his electoral victory lacked integrity – has been rejected by the Venezuelan government, which maintains that such claims are part of a US plot to overthrow the regime after sanctions and internal pressures failed to achieve that objective. Thus, the American trial is a political weapon.
What the United States is doing in the Maduro file represents what can be described as the politicisation of justice, with courts transformed into tools in the hands of the US administration. This approach is not limited to Maduro alone; it has targeted a number of senior Venezuelan officials in an attempt to dismantle the system from within and to send a clear message that any challenge to US hegemony will come at a heavy cost. Washington has thereby exposed the true face behind slogans of democracy and human rights – leaving oil as the core of the conflict.
Venezuela possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the world, making it a highly strategic target, especially amid global shifts in energy markets. Over recent years, Washington has frozen Venezuelan assets worth billions of dollars, effectively taken control of CITGO – the Venezuelan oil company operating on US soil – and prevented the Venezuelan government from benefiting from its oil revenues. From Caracas’s perspective, this amounts to an indirect seizure of national wealth under the guise of US sanctions and laws.
These policies have weakened the economy, exacerbated inflation, and driven millions of Venezuelans to emigrate. The Venezuelan people have become the primary victims of an international conflict over which they have no control, at a time when international organisations confirm that sanctions have contributed to the worsening humanitarian crisis.
Washington views Venezuela as a troubling model of an oil-producing state outside its sphere of influence, allied with strategic rivals such as Russia, China, and Iran. Considering Venezuela as America’s “backyard” raises concerns for the security of neighbouring states. Venezuela, for its part, sees what it faces as political punishment for refusing to integrate into the US-led system.
The arrest and trial of Maduro, and the seizure of Venezuelan oil, clearly reveal that international law is no longer neutral in power struggles. Venezuela has exposed US hegemony in a rapidly changing world. Maduro is not merely a legal case, but a symbol of an international struggle over energy and influence. The United States is not fighting Maduro because he is a dictator, as it claims, but because he stepped outside the bounds of political and economic obedience. What happened confirms that whoever possesses wealth without political protection becomes a target.
Washington did not stop at Venezuela; its threats extended to Colombia and others in an effort to widen and redirect the conflict. Trump issued harsh statements against the government of Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing the country of producing cocaine for smuggling into the United States, and hinting at the possibility of military action or intervention if Colombia did not co-operate with Washington’s objectives in the war on drugs. The escalation with Colombia represents an unprecedented level of tension and has sparked broad international concern over the future of relations between the two countries and its impact on international stability.
This is especially so after Trump revived the issue of annexing Greenland – the autonomous territory of Denmark – arguing that it is a strategic necessity to protect US national security from Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, claiming that Denmark is incapable of protecting it. Some of Trump’s officials continue to push this file.
Trump’s escalation is part of a broader trend in contemporary US foreign policy that leans toward reactivating America’s role in multiple regions outside the framework of traditional diplomacy, under the banners of national security or combating trafficking.
These actions have drawn global criticism, even from Washington’s closest Western allies, as the shocking assault on Venezuela’s sovereignty and the kidnapping of its legitimate president undermine the most fundamental principles of international law – particularly the prohibition on the use of military force to impose political demands – along with overt and covert threats against other Latin American countries.
