By Carmen Segovia Fernandez
On January 3rd, US military forces captured and removed Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from office, followed by strikes on military bases in Caracas. The pair were later flown to New York to be tried for leading a “corrupt, illegitimate government” focusing on alleged drug trafficking operations pouring immense amounts of cocaine into the US. This abduction of Venezuela’s leadership, referred to as Operation Absolute Resolve, is part of the White House’s larger-scale military campaign in the Caribbean: Operation Southern Spear, aimed at eliminating narco-terrorism networks in the Caribbean and under which alleged narco boats have been struck since early December 2025.
Hours after Maduro’s removal, most Venezuelans received the news with elation. Wilmer Castro, a local, commented that this January 3rd, instead of birthday wishes, he was granted what he had long longed for: “Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro removed from power.” Similarly, a student from Elijo expressed: “I think it is the best gift that I will ever receive, one I will never forget.” Nevertheless, as the world takes a step back from the events of January 3rd, it becomes increasingly clear that Maduro’s removal from power by US forces not only indiscriminately violates fundamental principles of international law, but it also does not put an end to Venezuela’s long-lasting crisis.
Operation Absolute Resolve and International Law
Maduro’s removal from power by the US challenges core principles of international law, an essential part of the post-WWII international community. Firstly, this operation most definitely violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, since it breaches the principle of non-intervention, which recognises that no state can interfere or use force in another state’s territory. Even though the US labelled Operation Absolute Resolve as a minor extraction mission, the mission was carried out using large-scale military equipment – strikes were fired and 80 people died, further proving the legal loopholes of the mission. In the UN charter, the only justifications for using force against another state are either through UN Security Council Approval or in self-defence from a direct threat, neither of which applies to this operation.
On this note, historically, international law has been consistently enforced on weaker states, while powerful states have used international law to legitimise military interventions which bear strategic interests in foreign states1. The US especially, has been known to do this in the past. A renowned example is that of Iraq, where the use of force was justified as a means of self-defence since Iraq was allegedly manufacturing weapons of mass destruction – the latter allegation later proved false and thus not valid as a legitimate explanation for the use of force2. The striking aspect of Operation Absolute Resolve is that President Trump did not justify the attack under international law. On the contrary, not long after Maduro’s removal from power, Trump declared that the US would “run” Venezuela and profit from its oil, clearly revealing the core interests behind Maduro’s removal. Overall, the US’s action in Venezuela proves that international law can no longer be, if it ever even was, an ordering/justice mechanism within the international community, meaning powerful states can use international law as a veil to push forward their national interests.
No change in sight for Venezuela
Although initially Venezuelans viewed Maduro’s removal from power as a blessing, the Saturday after US forces entered Caracas, Wilmer Castro revealed that this preliminary sense of elation had been replaced with cynicism. In fact, Washington’s actions after Operation Absolute Resolve have increasingly proven that putting an end to Venezuela’s long-lasting crisis is not a priority for the Trump administration. Trump has declared that Washington will be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future, threatening further military action if what’s left of Venezuela’s government were not to comply with US demands. Under the same narrative, Donald Trump also dismissed the idea of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado taking office and instead started collaborating with Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s vice-president and an active member of Maduro’s dictatorship. This clearly goes against the democratic principles the US ostensibly goes by, since in 2024 Edmundo Gonzales, presidential candidate of the opposition, won the elections. By working with Rodriguez, Trump is grossly ignoring the wishes of the Venezuelan people to select a leader of the opposition as ruler of their country.
Moreover, the Trump administration has made it increasingly clear that accessing and exploiting Venezuela’s extensive oil reserves lies at the heart of Washington’s engagement with the country. The administration has explicitly expressed its intention to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry while prioritising American access to these resources, which would necessarily imply cutting exports to non-allies such as Russia, China, and Cuba. With these interests at the base of its military approach towards Venezuela, the United States appears to be favouring stability by collaborating with the remnants of the Maduro regime. Thus, the US’s intervention in Venezuela actively prevents effective regime change, as the latter would require sustained diplomatic engagement, inclusive negotiations, and a long-term commitment to a “sustainable, gradual political transition”; a process certainly far more demanding than coercive control, but a process that is necessary to constructively brighten Venezuela’s future.
- Monnappa, K C. “THE UNITED STATES MILITARY OPERATION against VENEZUELA and the CRISIS of INTERNATIONAL LAW and the RULES BASED ORDER.” Hegemony , 2026.
- Monnappa, K C. “THE UNITED STATES MILITARY OPERATION against VENEZUELA and the CRISIS of INTERNATIONAL LAW and the RULES BASED ORDER.” Hegemony , 2026.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image credits: Wired