Executive Summary
On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted what it termed “Operation Absolute Resolve”—a large-scale military strike on Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. This unprecedented action represents the most significant US military intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. The operation has ignited fierce international debate about sovereignty, international law, and the return of spheres-of-influence geopolitics.
I. Trump’s Strategic Motivations: A Multi-Layered Agenda
1. Narco-Terrorism and Legal Justification
The Trump administration officially framed the operation as a law enforcement action rather than regime change. Maduro faces charges in the Southern District of New York including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons possession. The US increased the bounty on Maduro’s head from $15 million to $50 million in August 2025, signaling intensified commitment to his capture.
The administration alleges that Maduro’s government ran state-sponsored drug trafficking operations with notorious gangs including Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel. Trump repeatedly accused Maduro of intentionally sending gang members to the United States as part of the migration crisis.
However, this legal framing masks deeper strategic calculations.
2. Oil: The Hidden Prize
Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves—approximately 303 billion barrels, representing 17% of global reserves. Yet decades of mismanagement, corruption, and US sanctions have reduced production from over 3.2 million barrels per day in the 1990s to just 1 million barrels today.
Trump explicitly stated his oil-centric motivation: “We built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations, and they stole it through force. This constituted one of the largest thefts of American property in the history of our country.”
The president announced plans to deploy major US oil companies to Venezuela to “fix the badly broken infrastructure” and “start making money for the country”—language that raises profound questions about sovereignty and neo-colonial resource extraction.
3. Immigration Control
Venezuela’s economic collapse under Maduro fueled a mass exodus of 8 million Venezuelans over a decade—the largest wave of mass migration in the hemisphere’s recent history. For Trump, who campaigned heavily on immigration control, removing Maduro represents an opportunity to address the root cause of Venezuelan migration to the United States.
4. Ideological Warfare
The Trump administration made little secret that its campaign against Maduro was ideological as much as practical. Venezuela represents the last major socialist government in Latin America aligned with US adversaries including Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran. Toppling Maduro sends a powerful message to authoritarian regimes worldwide while advancing a broader vision of hemispheric dominance.
Republican lawmakers indicated that Cuba and Nicaragua would be next targets, with Representative Mario Díaz-Balart stating: “The first of those tyrannies has not survived President Trump. The next two, their days are also counted.”
5. Disputed Election and Democratic Legitimacy
The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was widely condemned as fraudulent. While Maduro claimed victory with 51% of the vote, international observers and opposition tallies indicated that Edmundo González won decisively. The Trump administration leveraged this disputed legitimacy to argue that Maduro was not a legitimate head of state, thereby weakening traditional sovereignty protections.
6. Countering Chinese and Russian Influence
China and Russia have been Venezuela’s primary backers, with China receiving approximately 80-85% of Venezuelan oil exports, often at steep discounts to service billions in Chinese loans. Russia’s state oil producer Rosneft maintained operations through legal workarounds to avoid sanctions.
By removing Maduro, the US aims to expel these adversaries from its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere—a return to Monroe Doctrine thinking.
II. International Law: Does Global Law Support This Action?
The Verdict: An Overwhelming “No”
International legal experts, UN officials, and governments worldwide have condemned the operation as a clear violation of international law. Here’s why:
1. Violation of the UN Charter
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4)). Only two exceptions exist:
- Self-defense under Article 51
- Security Council authorization under Chapter VII
Neither exception applies here. Venezuela did not attack the United States, and the UN Security Council never authorized military action.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated he was “deeply alarmed” by the strikes, calling them “a dangerous precedent” and expressing deep concern that “the rules of international law have not been respected.”
2. Sovereignty Violations
International law recognizes the principle of state sovereignty—the right of nations to govern themselves without external interference. The US conducted military strikes on Venezuelan soil, captured its head of state, and announced it would “run” the country temporarily.
Multiple world leaders condemned this as a fundamental assault on sovereignty:
- Brazil’s President Lula: “These acts represent a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.”
- France’s Foreign Minister: “The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law.”
- China’s Foreign Ministry: “Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.”
3. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Questions
While the US can prosecute individuals who commit crimes affecting US interests (such as drug trafficking), capturing a sitting head of state in his own country based on a domestic US indictment—rather than an International Criminal Court warrant—raises serious jurisdictional questions.
Senator Rand Paul noted: “Allowing the seizure of a foreign leader in his own country to execute a warrant basically means that we are granting U.S. grand jurors, along with prosecutors, the power to declare war.”
International law expert from Northeastern University stated: “International law is quite clear that one country cannot lawfully overthrow the leader of another, nor can it try them in its domestic courts.”
4. Constitutional Questions Within the US
The US Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to declare war (Article I, Section 8). Trump did not seek congressional authorization, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio later framed the operation as protecting those executing an arrest warrant.
Democratic lawmakers demanded immediate briefings and criticized the administration for not seeking authorization. Even some Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, expressed concern about the lack of congressional notification.
5. The Panama Precedent
The operation closely parallels the 1989 US invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega, also indicted on drug trafficking charges. That operation, though successful in capturing Noriega, was condemned by the UN General Assembly as a “flagrant violation of international law.”
The comparison is apt but troubling—it suggests the US believes it can unilaterally enforce its domestic criminal law through military force anywhere in the world, a position antithetical to the international legal order.
Legal Defense Attempts
The Trump administration attempted several justifications:
- Illegitimate Regime: Arguing that Maduro’s fraudulent election victory meant he wasn’t a legitimate head of state
- Humanitarian Intervention: Implied references to protecting Venezuelan people from an authoritarian regime
- Narco-State Justification: Framing Venezuela as a criminal enterprise rather than a legitimate state
None of these arguments have legal standing under international law. Even illegitimate or authoritarian governments retain sovereignty protections, and humanitarian intervention requires either Security Council authorization or adherence to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine’s strict criteria.
III. The Developing World’s Perspective: A Dangerous Injustice
A Return to Imperialism
For much of the Global South, the US operation in Venezuela represents a terrifying regression to an era of colonial domination and gunboat diplomacy. The reaction has been one of alarm, anger, and profound concern about precedent.
1. Latin American Condemnation
The response from Latin America—a region with deep historical memory of US interventionism—has been particularly fierce:
Brazil (Lula da Silva): “Attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism… The action recalls the worst moments of interference in the politics of Latin America and the Caribbean.”
Colombia (Gustavo Petro): “Internal conflicts between peoples are resolved by those same peoples in peace. That is the principle of the self-determination of peoples, which forms the foundation of the United Nations system.”
Mexico: “Mexico emphatically reiterates that dialogue and negotiation are the only legitimate and effective means of resolving existing differences.”
Cuba (Miguel Díaz-Canel): Called the operation “state terrorism” and demanded urgent international intervention.
Even countries that opposed Maduro’s authoritarian rule expressed alarm at the precedent being set.
2. African and Asian Concerns
South Africa: Called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting to address what it viewed as a violation of international law.
Indonesia: Emphasized “the importance of respecting international law and the principles of the UN Charter” while calling for peaceful resolution.
Malaysia: Reaffirmed its position “opposing all forms of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states.”
3. The Precedent Argument: “If Venezuela, Then Who?”
Developing nations view the operation through a simple, terrifying lens: If the United States can invade Venezuela, capture its leader, and claim to “run” the country based on disputed elections and criminal indictments, what prevents similar action against any nation that displeases Washington?
German MP Roderich Kiesewetter articulated this concern: “The coup in Venezuela marks a return to the old U.S. doctrine from before 1940: a mindset of thinking in terms of spheres of influence, where the law of force rules, not international law.”
Some analysts noted ominously that the precedent could theoretically justify a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Russian intervention in former Soviet states, or any major power’s military action against smaller neighbors.
4. The Double Standard Problem
Developing nations observe that:
- Leaders with International Criminal Court warrants (like Israeli PM Netanyahu or Russian President Putin) can visit the US without arrest
- The US refuses ICC jurisdiction over its own personnel
- Yet the US conducts military operations to enforce its domestic indictments abroad
This selective application of international law breeds cynicism about the “rules-based international order” that Western powers claim to uphold.
5. Resource Exploitation Fears
Trump’s explicit statements about deploying US oil companies to “fix” Venezuela’s infrastructure and “make money for the country” evoke colonial-era resource extraction. For nations that suffered under colonialism, this language triggers deep historical trauma.
The narrative of “we built it, they stole it, so we’re taking it back” fundamentally contradicts the principle that nationalization of resources—while potentially requiring compensation—is a sovereign right.
6. Weakening of Multilateral Institutions
The operation undermines the UN system designed to prevent exactly this type of unilateral military action. If major powers can simply ignore the UN Charter when convenient, what protection do smaller nations have?
Uruguay’s statement captured this concern: “Uruguay rejects, as it always has, military intervention by one country in the territory of another and reaffirms the importance of respecting international law and the UN Charter.”
7. The “Might Makes Right” Era
Many developing nations see this as confirmation of a new geopolitical era where power—not law—determines outcomes. Brazil’s Lula stated: “Attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.”
This perspective suggests the post-World War II international order, built on principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention, is collapsing in favor of spheres of influence controlled by major powers.
IV. Singapore’s Strategic Calculus: Navigating Turbulent Waters
Why This Matters to Singapore
While geographically distant from Latin America, Singapore has profound interests in how this crisis unfolds. As a small, resource-dependent trading nation that relies on international law and stability, Singapore faces several concerning implications.
1. International Law and Small State Security
Singapore’s entire post-independence strategy rests on the principle that international law protects small states from larger neighbors. Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has repeatedly emphasized that “small states have the most to lose when international law is disregarded.”
The Venezuela operation demonstrates that international law can be violated with impunity by major powers. This is existentially threatening to Singapore’s security model.
If powerful nations can simply invoke domestic legal frameworks to justify military action, Singapore—which has occasionally faced diplomatic tensions with neighbors—could theoretically face similar treatment if geopolitical alignments shift.
2. Oil Market Implications
Singapore’s economy is heavily dependent on oil trading, refining, and petrochemicals. The nation is one of the world’s top three oil refining centers and a major oil trading hub.
Short-term effects:
- Market analysts, including Singapore-based Vanda Insights CEO Vandana Hari, noted that immediate oil market impacts are “minimal—not much beyond another uptick in the Venezuela risk premium.”
- Oil prices may see modest increases due to geopolitical uncertainty, but Venezuela’s reduced production (only 1 million barrels/day, less than 1% of global output) limits the impact.
- Current oversupply in global oil markets cushions against disruption.
Long-term considerations:
- If the US successfully stabilizes Venezuela and opens its oil sector to American companies, significant new supply could eventually enter the market (though this would take years and billions in investment)
- Increased supply would be bearish for oil prices, potentially affecting Singapore’s refining margins
- However, Venezuela’s unique heavy crude grades (67% of output) are difficult to replace and important for certain refinery operations
China factor:
- China purchases approximately 80-85% of Venezuelan oil exports at steep discounts
- If this supply is disrupted, China may seek alternative sources, potentially affecting Asian oil markets and pricing
- Singapore’s refineries could see shifts in crude sourcing patterns
3. US-China Tensions and Singapore’s Balancing Act
Singapore carefully maintains close relationships with both the United States and China—a balance that becomes increasingly difficult as great power competition intensifies.
China strongly condemned the US action as violating international law and threatening regional stability. Russia similarly denounced the operation. The Venezuela crisis forces Singapore to navigate:
- Principle vs. pragmatism: Singapore believes in international law and non-intervention, principles violated by the US operation. Yet Singapore also maintains a critical security partnership with the United States.
- Economic interdependence: China is Singapore’s largest trading partner; the US is a crucial security ally and major investor. Taking sides risks alienating one or the other.
- ASEAN solidarity: Many ASEAN partners (Indonesia, Malaysia) explicitly condemned the US action as violating sovereignty and international law. Singapore’s response must consider regional cohesion.
4. Precedent for Taiwan
Multiple analysts noted the operation creates precedent that could theoretically justify Chinese military action against Taiwan—a scenario with catastrophic implications for Asian trade, including Singapore’s port operations and economy.
David Rothkopf described the action as potentially enabling “Putinization of US foreign policy”—suggesting that if the US violates sovereignty norms, other powers may feel empowered to do the same.
5. Shipping and Trade Security
Singapore’s economy depends on secure, rules-based international shipping. The US blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers in recent weeks and military operations in the Caribbean demonstrate how quickly trade routes can become militarized.
If major powers increasingly use naval force to enforce political objectives, Singapore’s position as a global shipping hub becomes more vulnerable to disruptions.
6. Energy Security
Singapore imports all its energy needs and maintains strategic petroleum reserves. Any major disruption to global oil markets—whether from Venezuela, potential Middle East escalation, or other sources—directly affects Singapore’s energy security.
The operation occurs amid existing geopolitical tensions: Ukraine war impacts on Russian energy exports, Middle East instability, and ongoing US-China tensions. Multiple simultaneous crises could create compounding effects on energy markets.
7. Diplomatic Positioning
Singapore must calibrate its response carefully:
What Singapore should consider:
- Upholding principles: Reaffirming commitment to international law, UN Charter, and sovereign equality without explicitly naming the US
- Calling for restraint: Supporting peaceful resolution and dialogue, consistent with ASEAN’s approach to conflicts
- Regional engagement: Working within ASEAN to develop a unified response that protects small state interests
- Track II diplomacy: Using informal channels to express concerns to Washington about precedent-setting while maintaining the bilateral relationship
- UN engagement: Supporting calls for Security Council discussion while recognizing major power dynamics may prevent meaningful action
What Singapore should avoid:
- Taking clear sides: Explicitly condemning or supporting the US action would damage relations with either China or the US
- Appearing unprincipled: Silence or tacit support would contradict Singapore’s long-standing position on international law
- Regional isolation: Breaking from ASEAN consensus would undermine regional solidarity
8. Economic Opportunities and Risks
If Venezuela stabilizes under a pro-Western government, potential opportunities include:
- Petrochemical industry: Singapore companies could participate in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure
- Trade expansion: New government might seek Asian partnerships, including with Singapore
- Maritime services: Increased Venezuelan oil exports would benefit Singapore’s shipping and logistics sectors
However, risks include:
- Prolonged instability: If transition is chaotic, Venezuelan oil remains offline, creating persistent market uncertainty
- Regional escalation: Other Latin American nations could face similar US interventions, creating broader instability
- Sanctions complications: Companies operating in Venezuela face complex US sanctions regimes that Singapore firms would need to navigate carefully
9. The Rules-Based Order Question
Singapore’s prosperity is built on the assumption that a rules-based international order protects small states. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and other Singaporean leaders have consistently championed multilateralism and international law.
The Venezuela operation raises fundamental questions:
- Can international law meaningfully constrain major powers?
- Is the post-WWII order transitioning to a sphere-of-influence model?
- How should small states adapt their security strategies?
These questions require deep strategic thinking in Singapore’s government as the nation considers its long-term security and economic policies.
V. Conclusion: A World at a Crossroads
The US capture of Nicolás Maduro represents more than a single military operation—it symbolizes a potential inflection point in international relations.
For Trump and his supporters, the operation demonstrates American strength, willingness to confront adversaries, and commitment to securing US interests (particularly oil and border security) through decisive action.
For international lawyers and multilateral institutions, it represents a dangerous violation of foundational principles that protect all nations, large and small, from unilateral military aggression.
For the developing world, it evokes painful memories of imperialism and confirms fears that powerful nations will simply take what they want when convenient, regardless of law or sovereignty.
For Singapore and similar small states, it raises existential questions about whether international law can continue to provide the security framework on which their independence and prosperity depend.
The Venezuelan operation may be remembered as the moment when the post-1945 international order definitively gave way to a new era of great power competition, spheres of influence, and might-makes-right geopolitics. Whether that transition leads to greater instability or a new equilibrium remains to be seen, but the stakes for small nations like Singapore could not be higher.
As the world watches Maduro’s arraignment in New York and observes what unfolds in Venezuela, the question is not just about one country’s future—it’s about what kind of world we will inhabit in the decades to come.
Last updated: January 4, 2026