Experts see Venezuela operation and threats to other countries an attempt to revive colonialist politics
KARACHI:
“I don’t need international law. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” US President Donald Trump declared in an interview with the New York Times on Friday. The remarks came in the aftermath of a daring US special forces operation that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, raising alarm bells among international law experts, political commentators, and foreign policy analysts worldwide.
Trump’s blunt assertion underscores a broader pattern of unilateralism in US foreign policy, one that challenges not only constitutional and legal norms but also the entire post-World War II international system.
According to Trump, the operation in Venezuela was intended to allow the US to “use oil, and… take oil,” with the revenue from it under his direct control. Such statements, reminiscent of colonialist-era ambitions, signal a profound departure from standard diplomatic practice and provoke concerns about the erosion of the international legal order.
Read: ‘I don’t need int’l law’, says Trump
Stephen Collinson, writing for CNN, described the abduction as a brazen violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. “The operation probably went beyond a president’s constitutional prerogative in the use of military force. But the president’s morals weren’t troubled, so he went ahead,” Collinson observed.
Michelle Langrand, from Geneva Solutions, called the operation “the latest blow to international law,” warning that a system already weakened by selective enforcement is struggling to respond effectively.
Legal scholars have been unequivocal in their condemnation. Vincent Chetail, professor of international law at the Graduate Institute, described the raid as a clear violation of international law and the prohibition on the use of force.
Kate Vigneswaran, director of the International Commission of Jurists’ Global Accountability Initiative, labeled the operation an “act of aggression,” stressing the dangerous precedent it sets for other states.
The ramifications extend far beyond Venezuela. Europe, historically a partner of the US in upholding multilateral norms, has been left frozen in response, perplexed by Washington’s aggressive unilateralism. As Tim Ross writes for Politico, the EU’s reaction to Trump’s Venezuela move was like “an icy slap of Arctic air,” reflecting a growing disillusionment with America’s leadership.
Read More: Venezuela swears in Delcy Rodriguez as interim president after US seizes Maduro
Trump’s subsequent threats to NATO, Cuba, and Iran, as well as his interest in Greenland, signal a pattern in which US foreign policy increasingly prioritises executive discretion over alliances and shared global norms.
Experts warn that dismissing international law could have catastrophic consequences. International law — codified through UN conventions, treaties, and multilateral agreements — has historically provided the framework to prevent unilateral aggression and ensure global stability.
Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera that the US’s rhetoric is “extremely dangerous,” cautioning that it may herald a return to an era of imperialism. By undermining international legal norms, Washington risks emboldening other states to pursue aggressive policies under the guise of national interest.
Yusra Suedi, assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, echoed these concerns. “It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to follow suit—states such as China, eyeing Taiwan, or Russia regarding Ukraine,” she said.
Ian Hurd, professor of political science at Northwestern University, placed Trump’s actions in historical context, noting that US interventions in Latin America over the past century — including coups and invasions in Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Chile — have repeatedly produced instability, repression, and human rights violations.
“Trump’s Venezuela policy is in line with the historical pattern of the US attempting to decide governance in the Americas. In every case, Washington eventually came to regret its intervention,” Hurd said.
Also Read: Venezuela’s interior minister says 100 died in US attack ousting Maduro
Jiang Feng, a researcher at Shanghai International Studies University, explained that Trump’s approach exposes a long-standing US tradition of self-centered supremacy in global affairs. The current administration’s overt dismissal of international norms is not an anomaly but a continuation of a pattern in which international law is invoked selectively — when it serves American interests — and discarded when inconvenient. The result is a destabilisation of the liberal international order, once anchored in Western-led institutions and norms.
Analysts say that the broader consequences are grave. Tim Ross observes that Trump’s policies threaten not just specific agreements like the Paris climate accord but the broader architecture of the European Union, historically a major producer of international legislation.
By privileging unilateral decision-making over multilateral consultation, the US risks undermining decades of collective effort to establish rules that prevent war, protect human rights, and promote sustainable development.
The Trump administration’s actions exemplify a dangerous revival of power politics: “might makes right.” Legal and policy experts warn that if major powers disregard international law, it risks triggering a global chain reaction. Other states may feel justified in pursuing aggressive or expansionist policies, eroding decades of progress in conflict prevention and multilateral cooperation.
The Venezuela operation also highlights the domestic dimension of Trump’s foreign policy. By portraying himself as the sole arbiter of morality and law, Trump centralises decision-making in the executive, sidelining constitutional constraints and institutional oversight. This concentration of power, combined with disregard for international norms, creates systemic risks, both at home and abroad.
In a nutshell, the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro and the president’s subsequent rejection of international law is more than a geopolitical maneuver — it is a symbolic and practical assault on the international order.
Experts warn that the precedent set by such unilateralism endangers global stability, undermines multilateral institutions, and risks emboldening other states to adopt similar aggressive tactics. As Jiang Feng notes, the world is facing a “slippery slope” in which centuries of legal norms designed to prevent war and ensure cooperation could be reversed, returning international relations to an era of brute power politics.
Trump’s statements and actions in Venezuela are a stark reminder that the health of the global order relies not merely on the existence of treaties and laws but on the willingness of states — especially powerful ones — to abide by them. Ignoring international law may offer short-term strategic gains, but experts caution that the long-term consequences could be catastrophic, destabilising not just the Western-led liberal order but the entire framework of international governance built over the past century.
