By: Zainab Salam, Opinions Editor
On January 3, I sat glued to my phone watching the videos of the US’ attack on Venezuela’s capital Caracas. That same day, Nicolás Maduro was captured by US forces. While Maduro is a dictator with a long-list of heinous acts (as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), the nature of his leadership does not legitimize the violation of international law.
The situation in Venezuela kick-started a film in my head that replayed the horrors that the US-led coalition had unleashed on my people. The images very closely resembled those shared upon the Battle of Baghdad, in 2003. In true colonizing fashion, the footage highlighted the bleak nature of militaristic attacks in the 21st century. The clips of Baghdad reflected a city that is being bombed beyond recognition. This made me think of all the suffering that is going to ensue against Venezuelan civilians — and the suffering that has already been inflicted by the “large-scale military strikes.” A people who have already experienced sociopolitical instability for such a long time will be subjected to further political turmoil.
To be clear, this military operation is an illegal act that transgresses over Venezuela’s sovereignty and undermines the international legal order. This legal order provides specific contexts that permit intervening in a sovereign state. Nevertheless, the violence carried out by the US government compels global citizens to revisit the commitments made at the end of the Second World War (WWII). Commitments that were codified to prevent this kind of aggression from happening again.
Rising from the ashes of WWII, states recognized the desperate need for a legal framework that would establish equality and sovereignty among nation-states. In 1945, representatives from 50 countries convened in San Francisco with the task of designing what would later be known as the United Nations Charter. This effort followed the failure of the League of Nations, whose limited authority proved incapable of preventing international aggression. The hope was that the newly formed United Nations (UN) would impose meaningful restraints on the use of force.
Article 2 of the Charter reflects that ambition. It establishes the foundational principles governing state behaviour. Including sovereign equality (Article 2 (1)), and the prohibition of “force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” (Article 2 (4)).
The US serves an important role within the UN system: it’s a Charter signatory (another way of saying that it’s a founding member), a permanent member of the Security Council (with an incredibly powerful power of veto to protect its interests), and a party to numerous UN treaties (which means it has the legal obligation to uphold the terms of those treaties). Yet, what remains starkly absent from those treaties is the lack of ratifications on major human rights treaties (those that aim to protect children, women, and disabled individuals, among other marginalized groups). And what is perhaps most notable in this context: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Where this Statute helps prosecute serious international crimes (such as genocide and the crime of aggression, among others) — think of how Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, is currently at large for his war crimes, and will be arrested upon entering any of the states that has signed the Statute. US had initially signed the treaty in 2000, but withdrew its signature just two years later. An act that insulates their state from accountability on an international stage.
It is difficult to ignore the approximate timing of the US’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute — just one year before the invasion of Iraq. This event goes on to become a highly advantageous one, as it effectively protected US leaders from being held accountable for their crimes against humanity in Iraq. The continued unfortunate reality of the ramifications of this lack of international accountability is also at play for the crimes they have and will commit in Venezuela.
For this reason, Article 2 of the UN Charter remains relevant precisely because it articulates the standard the international community continues to violate. In continued militaristic operations that undermine sovereignty, the international community must be reminded that the standard that they are supposed to uphold is a legal obligation. One that they seem to only exercise with weaker states. An unfortunate reality emerges from the power dynamic embedded in UN affairs: some states are able to transgress sovereignty simply because they possess sufficient power to do so.
The case of Iraq offers an example of this transgression. Just two years after the 2003 invasion, Iraq was estimated as holding 10% of the world’s oil reserve. This is when it became clear that the motivation for the US-led coalition had other, materialistic, motivations. Where, publicly, US had declared a necessity of invading Iraq to destroy its reserve of weapons of mass destruction — which was, quickly, figured out to be untrue.
These questions resurface in Venezuela today. In an interview with Jon Stewart last year, Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed out the relevance of Venezuela when it pertains to US’ oil rush. Particularly amid discussions of US energy dominance. Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserve, with 17.17% of the world’s reserve as estimated in 2025. Interestingly, Trump left no room for speculation regarding his motivation for this illegal transgression over sovereignty. Trump’s declaration that the US is “going to have our very large United States oil companies — the biggest anywhere in the world,” highlights the premise of US’ involvement in Venezuela. This militaristic act is to extract resources for profit.
US has had a past of intervening in Venezuelan affairs that often undermined the country’s sovereignty and stability. Meaning that much of its political insecurity has stemmed from US meddling in national affairs. Unfortunately, this attack is a more direct militancy that sets a “dangerous precedent” with ramifications that extend into Venezuelan and international levels!
The most direct cost of this pursuit will be, primarily, endured by civilians. While the official death toll remains unclear, Reuters shared Venezuela’s estimate, as posited by their interior minister, of the death toll of 100 people. This estimate doesn’t specify whether the casualties were civilian or politically involved individuals.
Importantly, we must acknowledge the most immediate consequence of this military strike as a deepening humanitarian crisis. The strikes on Caracas have damaged infrastructure, disrupted access to electricity, and will cause (and really, have caused) an environmental calamity. Several humanitarian organizations have flagged their worry over this militaristic aggression.
As the world, and myself, continue to watch, Venezuela stands as a chilling reminder that sovereignty is violated and humans and the environment suffer irreversible damages.
The images that a younger me had witnessed, will now be experienced by little kids that don’t understand why other kids get a safe home and they don’t.
