Analysis: Venezuela: Sovereignty, and the Return of U.S. Interventionism

People celebrate after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Santiago, Chile on January 3, 2026.

By: Widyane Hamdach, Ph.D.

New York: The dramatic removal and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces in early January 2026 represents one of the most unprecedented uses of force against a sitting head of state in the post–Cold War era. The operation, justified by Washington as the lawful enforcement of longstanding indictments for narco-terrorism and organized crime, has set off intense global debate over sovereignty, international law, and the future of American influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Historical Background and the Removal of Nicolás Maduro

For decades, U.S.–Venezuelan relations have been characterized by deep antagonism rooted in ideology, energy politics, and competing visions of governance. Under Hugo Chávez and later Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela pursued a socialist agenda, expanded ties with China and Russia, and resisted U.S. pressure. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and legal indictments became core elements of U.S. policy long before 2026. In a bold escalation, U.S. forces carried out strikes in Caracas in January 2026 and captured Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York to face federal charges including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking.

President Donald Trump framed the operation as a necessary enforcement of U.S. law and an effort to prevent the Western Hemisphere from becoming a base for hostile actors, while denying that the U.S. intended to occupy Venezuela. Critics, including United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, raised deep concerns about the legality of the operation under international law, noting the absence of Venezuelan consent or Security Council authorization.

The capture of Maduro has revealed deep domestic divisions. Supporters of the U.S. intervention see it as a chance for democratic renewal following years of repression and economic collapse, urging security forces to uphold constitutional mandates for inclusive elections. However, other Venezuelans view the operation as a serious breach of sovereignty. Maduro himself insisted in court that he remains Venezuela’s legitimate president and described his detention as an unlawful “kidnapping.” For segments of the population, particularly those who suffered hardship amid external sanctions and internal mismanagement, the intervention evokes memories of past foreign interventions in the region and raises fears of escalating instability.

International Reactions and Regional Consequences

The global reaction has been sharply polarized. Several Latin American governments condemned the U.S. action as a dangerous precedent and a threat to regional peace, emphasizing that sustainable political solutions cannot be imposed from the outside. Countries including Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Russia, and Iran condemned the Trump administration's intervention in Venezuela, articulating concerns about the violation of sovereignty and regional stability. China and Russia have been particularly outspoken, condemning Washington’s “hegemonic acts” and calling for adherence to international law. China’s Foreign Ministry described the strikes as “a blatant use of force that seriously violates international law and basic norms in international relations, infringes upon Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region,” urging the U.S. to respect national sovereignty. Russia similarly characterized the operation as a regression to “lawlessness” in international relations and called for the protection of Venezuelan sovereignty.

These reactions reveal broader geopolitical fissures. For neighbors such as Colombia and Brazil, who balance concerns about security and democratic norms, the Venezuelan crisis underscores the limits of regional autonomy in the face of U.S. interventionism.

U.S. Strategic Interests and Global Significance

U.S. interests in Venezuela encompass strategic, economic, and ideological dimensions. Venezuela sits atop some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, historically serving as a lucrative market for China and a strategic asset in global energy politics. Beijing, reliant on Venezuelan oil imports and extensive bilateral investments, strongly criticized the U.S. operation, warning that unilateral actions by major powers undermine global order and international law.

From Washington’s perspective, the operation serves multiple aims: dismantling a regime accused of illicit activities, curtailing influence by rival powers such as China and Russia in the Western Hemisphere and reinforcing a policy posture reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine—asserting U.S. primacy in its “backyard.” Yet this approach carries risks. The dramatic use of force may destabilize long-standing international norms protecting state sovereignty and could invite similar actions by other powers, as critics note in the context of potential Chinese aggression toward Taiwan or Russian actions in Eastern Europe.

Overall, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela mirrors past actions like the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 1989 Panama invasion, where military interventions framed as liberatory resulted in long-term instability and debates over legitimacy. The removal of Manuel Noriega in Panama, though tactically successful, raised concerns about U.S. regional policy and violations of sovereignty. The Venezuelan situation underscores the tension between pursuing accountability for alleged criminal governance and upholding international norms. Unilateral interventions by powerful states risk undermining sovereignty. Without a balanced framework, future crises may lead to more interventions that prioritize power over legal principles.

** Dr. Widyane Hamdach is a professor of political science and UN programs coordinator at Saint Peter’s University. She earned her PhD in global affairs from Rutgers University, specializing in global governance, Middle Eastern studies, and international relations. With over 17 years of experience as a TV reporter and producer, she has covered international affairs at the United Nations for various media outlets.