Guardian: US intervention in Venezuela marks end of global norms

Nesrine Malik, writing in the Guardian, contends that the United States’ seizure of power in Venezuela marks a decisive break from even the thin pretences that once accompanied Western military intervention. Her opinion piece reflects on how the “war on terror” era—despite its fabrications and illegality—at least attempted to justify invasion through the language of international law, morality and global security. What has replaced it, Malik argues, is something far more brazen.

According to Malik, the abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and the effective takeover of the country by the United States has been accompanied by an extraordinary lack of justification. Unlike the Iraq war or the invasion of Afghanistan, there has been little effort to frame the intervention as humanitarian, defensive or even reluctantly necessary.

Instead, senior US officials have openly framed the action as an expression of raw power and national interest. Malik highlights statements attributed to US leaders asserting America’s ability to “project its will anywhere” and explicitly linking the intervention to control over Venezuela’s oil.

The charges levelled against Maduro—ranging from “narco-terrorism” to weapons conspiracies—are, Malik notes, widely seen as inadequate grounds for invasion or forcible removal of a head of state. She further points out the inconsistency of these claims by contrasting them with the US government’s willingness to pardon or release other figures convicted of serious drug-related crimes. For Malik, this inconsistency underlines that the operation is not about law enforcement, but about demonstrating that the US itself functions as the ultimate authority, unconstrained by international norms.

The opinion piece argues that the international response has tacitly confirmed this reality. Statements from the UK, the European Union and other US allies have largely consisted of vague calls to “monitor the situation” or to respect international law in the abstract, without directly condemning the apparent violation of it. Especially, remarks from British and EU officials simultaneously reaffirm commitment to international law while condemning Maduro’s record, without clearly addressing who breached legal norms and how.

This reluctance, Malik suggests, accelerates a broader global breakdown. She situates Venezuela within a wider pattern of escalating instability: ongoing violence in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon; deepening rivalries in the Gulf, particularly involving Saudi Arabia and the UAE; the war in Sudan; protests in Iran; and renewed threats of regime change and territorial annexation. In this context, she argues, US actions risk legitimising similar behaviour by other powers, from Russia to China.

By failing to clearly resist or even name violations of international law, Western governments are, in the author's view, encouraging a world in which power alone sets the rules.

Silence, she warns, does not preserve stability. It dismantles what remains of a fragile global settlement and invites further acts of aggression—whose consequences will not remain confined to distant regions for long.

By Sabina Mammadli