By Lalit Garg
The recent American military action against Venezuela and the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro have once again forced the world to confront an uncomfortable and deeply unsettling question: Is the international order truly governed by rules and laws, or has the will of powerful nations become the new definition of global justice? What unfolded in Venezuela is not merely a regional episode confined to Latin America; it is a dangerous global precedent that exposes the growing arbitrariness of great-power conduct and the systematic violation of international law.
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela starkly reflects the unchecked unilateralism of a superpower that claims to defend democracy while simultaneously undermining the very foundations of sovereignty and global norms. The forcible detention of a sitting president of a sovereign nation and his transfer to the United States is not just diplomatic overreach—it is an extraordinary display of international strong-arm tactics. Such actions weaken the credibility of the rules-based world order and normalize the idea that might alone determines what is “right.”
Undoubtedly, the Maduro regime has remained controversial. Allegations of economic mismanagement, authoritarian governance, electoral irregularities, and human rights violations have haunted his administration for years. Venezuela’s economy collapsed, inflation spiraled out of control, and millions of citizens were forced to flee their homeland. These failures are real and grave. However, to use a country’s internal weaknesses as justification for external military intervention is fundamentally contrary to the spirit and letter of international law. If this logic were universally applied, few nations would remain immune from foreign interference.
The greatest contradiction lies in Washington’s self-image. The United States and its leadership frequently project themselves as global custodians of peace, democracy, and human rights. Yet, time and again, their policies reveal a mindset driven by regime change, coercion, and domination. President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington would effectively “oversee” Venezuela until a new government is installed is especially alarming. Such statements echo colonial-era thinking and revive the specter of imposed governance—an approach the modern world supposedly rejected decades ago.
More troubling is the economic subtext behind this intervention. Many geopolitical analysts argue that America’s primary concern in Venezuela is neither democracy nor human dignity, but control over resources—specifically oil. Venezuela possesses one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and U.S. foreign policy has historically demonstrated a consistent pattern: Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan serve as sobering reminders where “democratic intervention” resulted not in stability, but in prolonged chaos, civil conflict, and humanitarian disasters. Trump’s remark that the cost of the operation to capture Maduro would be recovered from Venezuela’s oil revenues removes any lingering doubt about the true motivations behind the action. This is imperial ambition disguised as moral responsibility.
The geopolitical repercussions of this crisis are both deep and far-reaching. Russia and China have already condemned the intervention as a direct threat to the rules-based international system. Even some U.S. allies—long critical of Maduro—have expressed unease over the precedent this sets. Such unilateralism risks accelerating global polarization and weakening America’s moral authority. When a nation that lectures others on sovereignty openly violates it, on what ethical ground can it demand restraint from rivals? This contradiction may embolden other powers to justify similar actions elsewhere, from Eastern Europe to East Asia. Equally alarming are the economic consequences. Any disruption in Venezuelan oil production or exports threatens global energy markets. A surge in oil prices would ripple across economies worldwide, hitting developing nations hardest. Countries like India, heavily dependent on energy imports, have a direct stake in stability rather than escalation. India’s cautious and balanced response—calling for dialogue, restraint, and a diplomatic solution—reflects both pragmatic wisdom and moral responsibility. War, history reminds us, is never a sustainable solution.
The lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan are painfully clear. Military interventions may topple regimes, but they rarely build nations. America itself ultimately withdrew from these countries in circumstances widely regarded as humiliating, leaving behind fragile states still struggling with violence and instability. Launching a war is easy; nurturing peace, governance, and trust is infinitely harder. Yet this fundamental truth seems repeatedly ignored. The greatest irony of the Trump administration lies in its rhetoric-versus-reality divide. While proclaiming itself a champion of peace, its foreign policy has consistently relied on confrontation, sanctions, and coercive power. This duplicity not only erodes U.S. credibility but also weakens institutions like the United Nations and diminishes respect for international law. When powerful nations violate rules at will, global order inevitably slides toward chaos.
The Venezuela crisis should serve as a warning to the world. It reveals how power politics continues to overshadow humanity, justice, and legality. The international community must respond collectively and decisively against such unilateral interventions. Dialogue, diplomacy, and multilateral engagement—not tanks and bombs—are the only viable paths toward lasting solutions. Ultimately, the right to decide a nation’s leadership belongs to its people, not to foreign armies. A “dictator” may be removed by force, but peace, stability, and prosperity cannot be imposed at gunpoint. If the United States truly aspires to global leadership grounded in moral authority, it must abandon its double standards and recommit to respecting international law. Otherwise, Venezuela will not be the last victim of such interventions, and the world will continue drifting toward a more unstable and insecure future.
