Tag :
Opinion
- Asep Haryono | The U.S. Attack on Venezuela. Power, Law, and Precedent: Rethinking International Order. My Opinions and Prespective - Powered by Blogger
Disclaimer:
This article is an opinion-based analysis written using information available from international media reports, public statements, and open-source sources at the time of writing. It reflects the author’s personal perspective on international law and global governance and does not claim to represent definitive legal judgment or official positions of any government or institution.
When a powerful country can launch airstrikes inside another sovereign nation and forcibly remove its president without international authorization, the question is no longer about politics it is about whether international law still has meaning.
The recent United States military operation in Venezuela has sent shockwaves far beyond Latin America. Regardless of one’s opinion of Venezuela’s leadership, the act itself challenges the very foundation of the rules-based international order and raises an uncomfortable but urgent question: are some countries now operating beyond the reach of international law?
My friends
The recent reports surrounding a United States military operation in Venezuela involving airstrikes and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife have triggered intense global debate. Beyond political alignment or personal views of the Venezuelan leadership, the incident raises a far more important question: does international law still apply equally to all states, especially powerful ones?
For many observers, this event is not simply about Venezuela. It is about the credibility of the international legal order itself. If a powerful country can unilaterally use military force inside another sovereign state and remove its head of government without clear authorization under international law, then the rules designed to protect global stability are at serious risk.
International Law and the Use of Force
At the heart of this controversy lies the United Nations Charter, the cornerstone of modern international law. Article 2(4) clearly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in two limited circumstances: self-defense against an armed attack or authorization by the UN Security Council.
In the case of Venezuela, critics argue that neither condition was clearly met. Venezuela did not launch an armed attack on the United States, and no explicit Security Council authorization was granted. From a legal perspective, this places the operation in a highly questionable position.
International law does not allow states to conduct military operations in another country simply to enforce domestic criminal charges or political objectives. Doing so risks transforming law enforcement into warfare a dangerous precedent that undermines sovereignty worldwide.
The recent United States military operation in Venezuela has sent shockwaves far beyond Latin America. Regardless of one’s opinion of Venezuela’s leadership, the act itself challenges the very foundation of the rules-based international order and raises an uncomfortable but urgent question: are some countries now operating beyond the reach of international law?
My friends
The recent reports surrounding a United States military operation in Venezuela involving airstrikes and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife have triggered intense global debate. Beyond political alignment or personal views of the Venezuelan leadership, the incident raises a far more important question: does international law still apply equally to all states, especially powerful ones?
For many observers, this event is not simply about Venezuela. It is about the credibility of the international legal order itself. If a powerful country can unilaterally use military force inside another sovereign state and remove its head of government without clear authorization under international law, then the rules designed to protect global stability are at serious risk.
International Law and the Use of Force
At the heart of this controversy lies the United Nations Charter, the cornerstone of modern international law. Article 2(4) clearly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in two limited circumstances: self-defense against an armed attack or authorization by the UN Security Council.
In the case of Venezuela, critics argue that neither condition was clearly met. Venezuela did not launch an armed attack on the United States, and no explicit Security Council authorization was granted. From a legal perspective, this places the operation in a highly questionable position.
International law does not allow states to conduct military operations in another country simply to enforce domestic criminal charges or political objectives. Doing so risks transforming law enforcement into warfare a dangerous precedent that undermines sovereignty worldwide.
Photo courtesy of KOMPAS Indonesia Official Youtube channel
Sovereignty and the Arrest of a Head of State
The forced capture of a sitting president inside his own country raises another serious legal issue: Sovereign immunity. While international law recognizes that heads of state may be held accountable for crimes, the process typically requires international courts, extradition agreements, or multilateral cooperation not unilateral military action.
When one country claims the right to arrest a foreign leader by force, it challenges the principle that states are legally equal. If this logic is accepted, then no government especially in smaller or weaker countries can feel secure.
This concern explains why many states react strongly, even if they strongly criticize the Venezuelan government itself. The issue is not about defending Maduro as a leader, but about defending the rules that protect all nations from coercion by force.
The Question of Double Standards
One of the most damaging consequences of such actions is the perception of double standards. International law is often presented as universal and neutral, yet in practice it appears selectively enforced.
Smaller or weaker states are frequently sanctioned, investigated, or condemned for violations, while powerful countries often face limited consequences. This inconsistency erodes trust in the international system and fuels accusations that international law is applied based on power, not principle.
Read also - Double Standards in Western Media
When the rules seem optional for the strongest players, they lose legitimacy for everyone.
Why the United Nations Struggles to Respond
Many people ask why the United Nations appears unable to respond decisively to such actions. The answer lies in the structure of the UN Security Council, where five permanent members including the United States hold veto power.
This veto allows any one of these states to block resolutions, including those condemning their own actions. As a result, the Security Council often becomes paralyzed precisely when decisive action is most needed.
The UN General Assembly may pass resolutions expressing concern or condemnation, but these are not legally binding. Without enforcement mechanisms, such responses remain symbolic rather than effective.
This structural imbalance has led many countries, particularly from the Global South, to argue that the veto system no longer reflects today’s world and is increasingly used as a political shield rather than a tool for peace.
The Dangerous Precedent
Perhaps the most serious implication of this incident is the precedent it sets. If one powerful state can justify military intervention to arrest a foreign leader, others may follow.
What happens if
• A regional power adopts the same logic?
• A rival state uses similar justification?
• Political disagreements become militarized?
History shows that once norms are weakened, instability follows. International law exists not because it is perfect, but because it helps prevent chaos. When those norms erode, the risk of conflict increases especially for countries without the means to defend themselves militarily.
Reconsidering the Veto System
This situation strengthens calls to rethink the UN veto system. Many countries now argue that while veto power may have made sense in 1945, it is increasingly incompatible with a world that claims to value equality, accountability, and rule-based order.
Proposed reforms include:
• Limiting veto use in cases involving clear violations of international law
• Requiring multiple vetoes instead of one
• Suspending veto power in cases of mass violence or aggression
• Increasing transparency and justification for veto decisions
While these reforms face political resistance, the growing number of crises blocked by vetoes suggests that reform is no longer optional it is necessary. Beyond Venezuela: A Global Issue
This issue goes far beyond Venezuela or the United States. It affects:
• Small and medium-sized countries
• Developing nations
• Regions with ongoing conflicts
• The future credibility of international institutions
If international law is perceived as a tool of the powerful rather than a shield for the vulnerable, countries may increasingly turn to self-help, alliances, or force exactly what the UN was created to prevent.
Conclusion: Law Must Stand Above Power
The alleged U.S. attack on Venezuela and the capture of its president represent a critical moment for international law. The question is not whether the Venezuelan government is controversial or flawed. The real question is whether any country, regardless of power, should be allowed to act outside the rules that bind all others.
No state should be above the law. If international law is to survive as a meaningful system, it must apply consistently especially to the strongest actors.
This moment should serve as a wake-up call. The world must decide whether it wants an international order governed by rules, or one governed by power alone. The answer will shape global stability for generations to come.
What do you think about the future of international law and global accountability?
Share your thoughts respectfully in the comments and join the discussion.
A Message From Asep Haryono
"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well. Please leave any comment down below. Let me hear from you. Greetings from Indonesia"
Law must stand above power. But no one is holding this regime accountable for its many crimes. Will the international community do it? When our own internal checks and balances have failed? It's not good.
ReplyDeleteHi there
DeleteYou are the first people wrote a reply here
Good morning from Indonesia
Its 8.22 AM here
You’re absolutely right. Ideally, law should always stand above power, but in practice, it often seems that accountability is missing, especially with powerful nations. The question of whether the international community will act is a difficult one so much depends on politics, interests, and enforcement mechanisms. I agree with you, it’s troubling when internal checks and balances fail. It really makes us think about the importance of justice and the rule of law in today’s world.
I've seen some people in Venezuela making videos and they are so glad he's been arrested and is gone, while quite a few people here in the US are making videos about how our President only did it so that we can get cheaper oil. There's a lot of differing opinions. But since we average people never get the whole picture or the whole truth in matters like these, I have no idea what to believe
ReplyDeleteThe US attacked Venezuela to rob this country, as you Americans always do in other countries.
DeleteGood evening Ma'am
DeleteWell You make a very important point, Mary. There really are many different perspectives, both inside Venezuela and abroad. Social media shows us fragments of reality, but rarely the full picture.
As ordinary people, we often have to rely on limited information, and that makes it hard to know where the full truth lies. I think it’s healthy to stay cautious, listen to different voices, and keep questioning motives whether political, economic, or humanitarian.
Thank you for sharing your honest thoughts; conversations like this really matter.
Russia condemns the attack on Venezuela and demands the release of Nicolás Maduro and his wife. I also published a post about Venezuela on January 4th.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and for sharing your post too! Yes many countries, including Russia, strongly condemned the U.S. military action in Venezuela and have called for the release of President Maduro and his wife, urging that the situation be resolved through diplomacy and respect for international law.
DeleteI saw that Russia’s Foreign Ministry emphasized concern about the attack and stressed that sovereign nations’ rights should be respected.
It’s clear that this event has drawn very different reactions around the world, and many people are asking tough questions about power, law, and fairness in international relations.
Thank you for bringing this into the conversation!