On December 31, 2025, reporters asked the US President Donald Trump about his resolution for the new year. To this, he replied, "Peace on Earth." Three days later, the US has struck several sites in Caracas, Venezuela, and also claims that the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife have been captured and flown out of the country to face trials in the US. States neighbouring Caracas such as Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira, were also reported as targeted. This also immediately follows an interview that Nicolas Maduro gave to La Jornada, where he said he was willing to hold serious talks with the US over investment in Venezuelan oil and addressing the drug trafficking challenge.
'Peace', in American lingo, perhaps translates to a ‘large-scale strike’.
What the Law Says
Article 2(4) of the United Nations charter explicitly prohibits the unlawful use of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state. As per this charter, the use of force is justifiable only under two counts: one, if the country initiating strikes is acting in self defence; and two, if the UNSC has authorised such strikes. Neither holds true here. Venezuela has not attacked the US or its citizens. To distort drug trafficking to fit the description of ‘armed attack’ would mean to turn the law upside down for the singular purpose of a military invasion — which the US has evidently been planning for months on end now. Russia, a UNSC member, has already condemned the attack, although its proactiveness in offering support to Venezuela, in the run up to the latest events, has been lacking.
Similarly, any domestic authorisation that the American President can use as justification for the attacks does not count in terms of international legality. The US may argue that the strikes sought to protect its own personnel or to oust the drug trafficking networks that have fashioned themselves as a menace. But these do not align with the ideals of the international rules-based order.
As for the claims the US is making about Maduro’s capture, such unilateral action, especially the capture of a sitting head of state, is legally not permissible. This would also qualify as unlawful use of force without the Venezuelan government giving its consent for an arrest. Bizarre as it may seem, given the manner of Maduro’s capture, it wouldn’t be a long stretch to call this kidnapping.
Even the constitutional provisions of the US preface Presidential military action with Congressional decision. The practice, however, has always seen the President unilaterally take a decision and then for the Congress to retroactively discuss it.
An Empire in Action
Caracas has demanded proof of life for Maduro and his wife. While casualties have not yet been confirmed, the Venezuelan Attorney General has assessed that several innocent civilians have lost their lives in the strikes carried out by the US. News accounts on the American side say that American personnel were not injured or killed during the raid.
Despite power passing between parties and presidents, the US has always remained consistent in its pursuit of ‘security’ through dominance instead of cooperation and ‘prosperity’ through exploitation and not equity. On questions of freedom, its decisions have been anchored to its own interests, not requiring the self-determination of a people.
Sanctions, blockades, and covert operations have finally concluded in overt military aggression now. The declaration may have come first in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize that whitewashed calculated demands for an ‘invasion’. From the Philippines to Vietnam to Iraq to Guatemala to Libya, and now Venezuela, the American empire continues to plunder using emancipatory pretexts.
