London, DIMITRIS MAVROKEFALIDIS
Its capture and transfer continues to raise questions about the characterization of the business, the implications for and the region, as well as the attitude of third countries. THE Dr. Rowan Lubbocka lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London and author of “Cultivating Socialism: Venezuela, ALBA, and the Politics of Food Sovereignty,” disputes the official American characterization of the operation as “law enforcement,” stating that “the intervention is less about fighting crime and more about the geopolitical reordering of the region,” while warning of the risk of normalizing such actions by powerful states.
How would you characterize the recent operation against Nicolas Maduro — arrest, kidnapping or something else?
While the Trump administration calls it “law enforcement,” the bombing of Venezuela is in fact a flagrant violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and the illegal kidnapping of a head of state, as the overwhelming majority of the UN Security Council recently declared.
What does this moment signify for the political course of Venezuela and its position in the wider region?
in recent years, to put it mildly, mainly due to a protracted economic crisis, the devastating effects of US sanctions since 2017 and the hotly contested elections of 2024. But it is difficult to say at this stage what the future holds for Venezuela, especially given the Trump administration’s troubling but vague hints about the country being “ruled” by the US. So far, the U.S. appears willing to work with interim President Delsy Rodriguez, rather than opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, as part of Trump’s quest for “stability.”
However, more instability is likely to follow for ordinary Venezuelans, who are already desperately trying to stock up on essential goods. Trump has demanded the immediate flow of oil to the US, while threatening the Venezuelan government if it does not provide “full access to everything”. This could mean either the continuation of the previous government under new leadership or the ultimate dismantling of what the Bolivarian process sought to create.
How does the UK’s historical relationship with Venezuela affect the way London reacts to US intervention?
The UK has a long and dark history with Venezuela, dating back to territorial disputes in the 19th century, as well as the naval blockade and bombardment of Venezuelan territory for debt repayment. But Britain has gradually ceded its geopolitical position in the Caribbean to American interests. In this sense, I would say that it is the UK’s historical relationship with the US that largely determines its response to US aggression.
In light of international law, was the US justified in keeping Maduro outside its own territory?
violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits the use of armed force, except in cases of self-defense or with the authorization of the Security Council – conditions that were not met in this case. There is absolutely no justification for this action under the guise of “law enforcement”. Only by extradition can a state legally bring a foreign leader into its own domestic jurisdiction.
On what legal basis can the US claim jurisdiction over Maduro?
While the military strikes against Venezuela were completely illegal, once Maduro enters the US, federal courts have full jurisdiction over him, regardless of how he entered the country.
What are the strongest legal challenges Maduro’s defense team could mount to the legality of the trial or the manner of his arrest?
Maduro’s legal team is certain to challenge the legality of the kidnapping itself, possibly invoking immunity as a foreign leader. However, there is also room for pressure on the Ministry of Justice to reveal part of the classified evidence of the case in the context of the prosecution’s arguments. This “graymailing” tactic, by requesting the release of sensitive information to the defense, could significantly prolong the process and even reduce the prosecution’s willingness to continue the prosecution. This may lead to either the continuation of the previous government under new leadership or the gradual dismantling of what the Bolivarian process sought to create.
Beyond the legal dimension, what ethical issues arise when powerful states forcibly detain foreign leaders?
American foreign policy has rarely come under the label of “ethics,” but Trump’s turn toward unchecked militarism, as reflected in the recent National Security Strategy, calls out for a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century, or the “Trump Corollary” as they call it. This may mean a regional offensive against any political leader or government deemed potentially hostile to American interests, as well as the “recruitment of regional champions” willing to align themselves with Washington. In this light, it becomes clear that the intervention in Venezuela is not so much about fighting crime, but more about the geopolitical realignment of the region. Exactly how the international community and the so-called “rules-based order” will be able to manage this emerging militarism remains unclear.
