Venezuela wacht nog in spanning af wat er gaat gebeuren na de dreigementen van president Trump dat er snel Amerikaanse militaire acties op Venezolaanse bodem komen. Trump zou de Venezolaanse leider Maduro een -inmiddels verstreken – deadline hebben gegeven om op te stappen.

Washington legt de militaire opbouw tegen Venezuela uit als een campagne tegen “narcoterrorisme”. De Amerikanen beschuldigen Maduro en zijn regime van leidinggeven aan het Cartel de los Soles, dat op grote schaal drugs naar de VS zou smokkelen. Maar onafhankelijke deskundigen zeggen dat Trump de Venezolaanse rol in de internationale drugshandel overdrijft.

Fentanyl

Een van de misvattingen die door Trump zijn verspreid betreft fentanyl. In september zei hij dat die dodelijke drug werd gesmokkeld aan boord van Venezolaanse drugsboten die door de Amerikaanse krijgsmacht waren opgeblazen.

Experts waren er snel bij om erop te wijzen dat Venezuela geen rol speelt in de export van fentanyl, dat in de VS honderdduizenden doden heeft veroorzaakt. Toch gaan de aanvallen op speedboten door en zijn er intussen 22 incidenten bekend, waarbij in totaal 87 mensen zijn omgekomen.

Smokkelroutes

Cocaïne wordt daarentegen wel verscheept vanuit Venezuela, onder meer naar de VS. Al is het aandeel dat via Venezolaans gebied naar Noord-Amerika wordt vervoerd beperkt in vergelijking met de export uit Colombia en Ecuador.

Het US Southern Command, dat operationeel verantwoordelijk is voor de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten ten zuiden van de VS, meldde in 2022 dat 80 procent van de drugs bestemd voor de Verenigde Staten via de oostelijke Stille Oceaan wordt vervoerd. Dat betekent dat maximaal 20 procent via de Caribische Zee gaat. Daarvan zou een deel vanaf de Venezolaanse kust vertrekken.

Fentanyl wordt beschouwd als massavernietigingswapen

Olie en problemen in VS lijken rol te spelen

1. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by US forces operating in Venezuela, and his forced transfer to the US for trial, poses a significant challenge for international law.

The US has described the operation as a judicial ‘extraction mission’ undertaken by law enforcement operatives supported by the military. Yet this was a military operation of considerable scale, involving strikes on military targets in and around Caracas, the capital, and the forcible abduction of a sitting president by US special forces. It is clearly a significant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the UN Charter.

This fact is compounded by President Donald Trump’s announcement during his press conference of 3 January that the US will ‘run’ Venezuela and administer a political transition, or regime change, under the threat of further, more massive uses of force. In addition, there seems to be a determination to use the threat of force to extract funds and resources in compensation for supposed ‘stolen’ or nationalized US assets and oil.

Justifications are hard to see

It is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications for transporting Maduro to the US, or for the attacks. There is no UN Security Council mandate that might authorize force. Clearly, this was not an instance of a US act of self-defence triggered by a prior or ongoing armed attack by Venezuela.

The White House asserts that it is defending the American people from the devastating consequences of the illegal importation of drugs by ‘narco-terrorists’ – consequences that could be compared to an armed attack against the US.

However, in international law, only a kinetic assault with military or similar means qualifies as a trigger for self-defence.

‘Restoring democracy’

This leaves the argument of pro-democratic intervention. Notably, the US did not use pro-democratic action as a formal legal justification when it invaded Grenada in 1983 and displaced its communist-leaning government. Neither did it do so when it invaded Panama in 1989 and captured President Manuel A. Noriega, with a view to putting him on trial for drugs offenses.

Washington avoided doing so because it feared creating a precedent that would justify pro-democratic interventions by other countries which it might oppose. Instead, it relied on an unconvincing claim to self-defence.

In the case of Venezuela, the US alleges that Maduro stole the presidential poll of 2024, that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzales Urrutia was the true victor, and that Venezuelan authorities falsified the result of 2025’s parliamentary elections. While this is disputed, there is little doubt that the electoral process was deeply flawed.

In 1948 the UN Declaration on Human Rights first enunciated the doctrine that the authority of a government must be based in the will of its people.

But in classical international practice, those who exercise effective control over a country’s population and territory will be treated as the government. Considerations of legal or political legitimacy matter less. Accordingly, most governments have abandoned the practice of formally recognizing newly established governments, however they come to power. If they are effective, they are the government.

However, in the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the doctrine articulated by the UN Declaration on Human Rights gained in currency.

In 1990, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected President of Haiti. But he was soon displaced in a coup mounted by a military junta. In 1994, after many failed diplomatic attempts to restore the democratic outcome of the elections, the UN Security Council formally authorized a US-led force to facilitate the departure of the generals. Faced with the imminent US invasion, they gave in and power was restored to Aristide.

Since then, a whole clutch of coups in Africa were opposed by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and its successor the African Union (AU), or sub-regional organizations. In several instances, these organizations authorized the use of force to restore democracy. Most recently, force was used to overturn the attempted coup in Benin last December with the backing of regional organizations.

African institutions and governments have also used sanctions and threats of force, where an incumbent government refused to hand over power after having lost elections. However, these instances generally required a formal election result.

This doctrine cannot be invoked in cases of creeping authoritarianism or in response to claims that elections have not been free and fair. It only applies in cases of counter-constitutional coups or where there is an election result that remains unimplemented by a sitting government.

The doctrine is generally only applied where the UN Security Council, or at least a credible regional organization, has granted a mandate – to avoid individual states seeking regime change in pursuit of their own agendas. Clearly, in this instance, there was no mandate from the UN or the Organization of American States.

US courts

Mr Maduro and his wife will however find little comfort in the fact that they were removed from Venezuela by way of an internationally unlawful intervention. US courts consistently apply the so-called Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which holds that they will exercise jurisdiction, irrespective of the means by which the body of the defendant was procured for trial.

The US will also refuse to extend Maduro the immunities that automatically apply to a serving president when travelling abroad. This too, is legally controversial. But as Noriega experienced before him, the US authorities are unlikely to be deterred by this fact.

Overall, this episode further erodes international confidence in the principle, agreed after the horrors of the 20th century’s world wars, that states must not enforce their legal claims or political demands through the use of force.

The fact that the US now claims to run Venezuela and to put in place its future government under the shadow of the gun, along with the demand to dominate the oil sector and extract ‘compensation,’ will reawaken uncomfortable memories of previous US dominance in the region.

For some, the operation in Caracas may conjure up the image of Russian helicopters circling over Kyiv on 24 February 2022, seeking to displace its government and turn Ukraine into a client state. While this is a false parallel, President Trump’s claim that the US now has the right to ‘dominate’ its immediate neighbourhood is reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s claim that Russia has a right to advance its security interests in its near-abroad forcibly.

The UN Secretary-General has noted that the rules of international law have not been met in this instance, calling it a ‘dangerous precedent’. Many other governments and international institutions are speaking out in a similar vein, though some others have expressed support.

It will be interesting to see whether the UK and other European US allies will be able to overcome the recently developed sense of diplomatic deference to President Trump and stand up in defence of the international rule of law. This may well be the moment when Western Europe realizes that the US has decisively abandoned the core values that united them for the past century.

END

Venezuelan officials condemn Maduro’s capture, calling it a “kidnapping”

Hours after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured by U.S. forces, the country’s vice president and other top regime figures condemned the military operation in stark terms and suggested they plan to push back on U.S. involvement in the country, posing a potential challenge to President Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela.

Maduro was flown out of the country in a “large scale strike” by U.S. forces, Mr. Trump said early Saturday. He is expected to be tried on drug trafficking charges, effectively ending a nearly 13-year reign that began after the death of President Hugo Chavez. The operation followed months of U.S. military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Maduro regime.

Top figures in Maduro’s government pushed back against the U.S. operation almost immediately after it began early Saturday morning.

VP Delcy Rodriguez calls Maduro the “only president of Venezuela”

Maduro’s handpicked vice president, Delcy Rodriguez — whom Mr. Trump said was sworn in as president Saturday — called Maduro’s capture “barbaric,” an “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping” and an attack on Venezuela’s sovereignty in a speech that was broadcast on state TV.

She also called for the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, calling him “the only president of Venezuela.”

Rodriguez’s defiant words came as Mr. Trump suggested he’s looking to work with the vice president in some form. In a press conference Saturday at Mar-a-Lago, the U.S. president said Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Rodriguez, who indicated that “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

Mr. Trump called Rodriguez “quite gracious” but said “she really doesn’t have a choice.”

The American leader said the U.S. is planning to “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” It’s not clear exactly how the country will be led, or to what extent existing Venezuelan officials or political figures would be involved. Mr. Trump said “we’re designating various people” and suggested members of his administration will play key roles.

Rodriguez said Saturday that the Venezuelan government is open to “dialogue,” pointing to Maduro’s statement earlier this week that he’s willing to negotiate with the U.S. on drug trafficking. But she did not offer any clear indications that she’s looking to work with the U.S. if it takes over, accusing Venezuela’s “enemies” of seeking to “enslave us.”

“If there is one thing that the Venezuelan people and this country are very clear about, it is that we will never again be slaves, that we will never again be a colony of any empire, of whatever stripe,” Rodriguez said in her address on state television.

Venezuelan leaders call for military to mobilize against “aggression”

Shortly after the U.S. operation began, the Venezuelan government said in a statement that national defense plans had been activated and Maduro ordered a “State of External Disturbance,” effectively a state of emergency.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced that military forces would be deployed across Venezuela on “Maduro’s orders” — though he didn’t mention Maduro’s capture — and called for resistance against “the worst aggression” Venezuela has faced.

“They’ve attacked us but they will not subdue us,” he said.

Meanwhile, Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello called for “calm” in a video translated by Reuters, saying, “No one should fall into despair, no one should make things easier to our invading enemy.”

Attorney General Tarek William Saab called the U.S. operation a “vile and cowardly attack” in remarks to Venezuelan state media, alleging that some innocent people were “mortally wounded.”

Venezuelan diplomats have also requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, sending a letter to the body asking it to condemn the U.S.’s “aggression.” Foreign Minister Yvan Gil accused the U.S. of seeking to take Venezuela’s natural resources. (On Saturday, Mr. Trump said part of his goal in Venezuela is to “get the oil flowing” in the petroleum-rich state.)

Venezuelan opposition leaders say they’re ready to take charge, but Trump isn’t so sure

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado celebrated Maduro’s ouster, saying in a statement: “Venezuelans, the time for freedom has come!”

Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, called for Edmundo Gonzalez to be recognized as Venezuela’s legitimate president and to take control of the armed forces. Gonzalez faced off against Maduro in the country’s last election in 2024, but the government recognized Maduro as the winner, in a result that was widely criticized by the U.S. and international observers on allegations that Maduro had stolen votes.

“Today we are ready to assert our mandate and take power. Let us remain vigilant, active, and organized until the democratic transition is complete,” said Machado.

Gonzalez said on X: “[W]e are ready for the great operation of the reconstruction of our nation.”

But Mr. Trump said in his press conference Saturday that it would be “very tough” for Machado to help lead the country, saying she didn’t have enough support.

“She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect,” Mr. Trump told reporters.