The US intervention in Venezuela: Is international law dead?

The US intervention in Venezuela: Is international law dead?

KAKALI DAS

Global diplomacy today no longer looks like a system built on laws, ethics, and mutual respect between nations. It increasingly resembles a children’s board game where power decides everything. Capture the leader, take control of the resources, and declare yourself the winner of the round. The recent actions of the United States in Venezuela have made this uncomfortable reality impossible to ignore. The world is now forced to ask a deeply troubling question. Has international law become optional. And if it has, is it optional only for powerful countries like the United States, or is it optional for everyone.

The reported United States military operation in Venezuela, allegedly named Operation Absolute Resolve, marks a dangerous turning point in global diplomacy. According to widely circulated accounts, this operation was the result of months of careful planning. American intelligence agencies reportedly monitored every movement of Venezuelan President NicolásMaduro. His daily routine, his security details, his travel patterns, and even the structure of his residence were under constant surveillance. This was not a spontaneous action. It was deliberate, calculated, and executed with absolute confidence that there would be no serious consequences.

The events that followed shocked the global community. Explosions lit up the night sky. Armed forces moved swiftly and decisively. Within hours, Venezuela’s top leadership was reportedly neutralized. President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, along with several senior officials, were taken into custody. Images circulated of them being escorted by heavily armed agents, flown out of their own country, and brought to the United States to face charges. Control over a sovereign nation appeared to change hands overnight.

The United States administration justified this extraordinary action by citing concerns over illegal migration, drug trafficking, narco terrorism, and the fentanyl crisis. According to Washington, Venezuela was responsible for exporting instability into American society. The claims included accusations that Venezuelan authorities allowed criminal networks to operate freely and deliberately pushed migrants toward the US border.

Yet these explanations have failed to convince much of the world. They appear too convenient, too repetitive, and too familiar. Similar justifications have been used repeatedly in the past to legitimize military interventions that later revealed very different motivations. To many observers, these reasons look less like facts and more like a carefully designed cover story. What is visible is only the surface. The real reasons lie much deeper.

At the heart of this issue lies oil, power, and the dominance of the United States dollar. Venezuela is not just another struggling country. It is one of the most resource rich nations on Earth. With approximately 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world, accounting for nearly one fifth of the global total. No other country, not even Saudi Arabia, matches this figure. This single fact makes Venezuela geopolitically irresistible to any global power seeking economic leverage.

Oil has shaped Venezuela’s destiny for decades. It has also made the country vulnerable. Nations rich in natural resources often become targets rather than beneficiaries of their wealth. In Venezuela’s case, its oil has attracted foreign interest, interference, and now, direct control.

But oil alone does not explain the urgency and scale of American action. The deeper issue is the global financial system, particularly the petrodollar arrangement. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the United States needed a new mechanism to maintain global demand for its currency. That mechanism emerged through an agreement with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s. Under this arrangement, oil would be sold exclusively in US dollars, and in return, the United States would provide military and political protection.

This deal transformed the dollar into the backbone of the global economy. Since oil is essential for every country, every nation needed dollars to buy it. This ensured constant global demand for the US currency and allowed the United States to finance massive deficits without facing immediate consequences. The petrodollar system became the foundation of American economic dominance.

Any country that challenges this system is seen not as a competitor, but as a threat. History offers several examples. Iraq attempted to move away from dollar based oil sales and was invaded. Libya proposed a gold backed currency and was destroyed. Venezuela openly discussed selling oil in Chinese yuan and strengthening energy ties with Russia. That alone may explain why Venezuela crossed an invisible red line.

From this perspective, the intervention in Venezuela appears less about crime and more about control. Control over oil ensures control over currency. Control over currency ensures control over global power. This is not speculation. It is a pattern repeated too often to ignore.

What makes this situation even more alarming is the complete disregard for international law. No United Nations mandate was sought. No global consensus was built. No international institution was consulted. A sovereign country was entered, its leadership removed, and its resources placed under foreign control without any legal authorization. This is not intervention. This is domination.

If such actions are accepted, then the idea of a rule based international order collapses. Sovereignty becomes meaningless. Borders lose significance. Laws exist only on paper. Power alone decides what is right and what is wrong.

This should concern every country, not just Venezuela. Today it is Latin America. Tomorrow it could be anywhere. If international law applies only when convenient, then no nation is truly safe.

India’s response to this development has been cautious and measured. Official statements have been restrained. This is understandable. India is currently navigating complex trade relations with the United States and facing the possibility of increased tariffs. From an energy perspective, India’s dependence on Venezuelan oil is minimal, so there is no immediate economic shock.

However, the moral and strategic implications are far greater. Venezuela’s oil does not belong to Washington. It belongs to the Venezuelan people. No amount of political justification can change that fact. Selling another country’s natural resources for profit is not leadership. It is exploitation.

This kind of behaviour resembles bullying rather than diplomacy. It reflects a mindset where strength replaces law and dominance replaces dialogue. Such an approach may bring short term gains, but it carries long term consequences.

The situation becomes even more dangerous when viewed alongside recent statements by President Donald Trump regarding Greenland. Greenland is an autonomous territory under Denmark, a NATO member and part of the European Union. Any attempt to take control of Greenland would trigger a massive geopolitical crisis. It would fracture NATO, strain US European relations, and destabilize the global security framework.

If alliances and treaties can be ignored when inconvenient, then they cease to have value. Trust erodes. Cooperation collapses. The world becomes more fragmented and more dangerous.

The fear of a larger global conflict cannot be dismissed lightly. When rules are abandoned and power becomes the only currency, confrontation becomes inevitable. Whether this leads to a third world war is uncertain, but the path is undeniably risky.

Global diplomacy is at a breaking point. Either the world recommits to international law, multilateralism, and respect for sovereignty, or it enters a new era where might alone defines justice. The events in Venezuela, regardless of how they are officially framed, have already weakened faith in the global order.

The real question now is not what the United States will do next, but how the rest of the world will respond. Silence may be interpreted as consent. Acceptance may invite repetition. Only collective resistance and moral clarity can prevent the complete erosion of international norms.

History will remember this moment. It will remember who spoke, who stayed silent, and who benefited. And it will judge whether the world chose law over power, or surrendered to a dangerous game where only the strongest player wins.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.