On January 3, large-scale US airstrikes on Caracas marked one of the most dramatic escalations in Washington’s Latin America policy in decades. Officially framed as a counter-narco-terror operation, the action went far beyond drug interdiction. It reopened uncomfortable questions about regime change, resource geopolitics, and the erosion of international legal norms—issues with implications well beyond Venezuela.
What triggered the US military action?
The White House justified the strikes as a response to alleged narcotics trafficking and security threats emanating from Venezuela. President accused President of colluding with powerful drug cartels responsible for the inflow of narcotics into the United States and contributing to rising overdose deaths. Claims about weapons hostile to US interests and irregular migration—including allegations of Caracas deliberately releasing criminals into migration flows—were added to the narrative, though critics argue these function more as post hoc justifications than proven casus belli.
Why the operation looks bigger than counter-narcotics
Reports suggesting the capture of Venezuela’s leader indicate objectives extending well beyond law enforcement. The scale and nature of the strikes resemble a classic regime-change operation rather than a policing action. This aligns with a revived US strategic doctrine that treats American primacy in the Western Hemisphere as non-negotiable. Venezuela’s close ties with Russia under its left-leaning government appear to have sharpened Washington’s threat perception, especially amid intensifying US-Russia and US-China rivalry.
The oil factor and geo-economic stakes
Energy geopolitics lies at the heart of the crisis. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, yet US corporate participation in its energy sector has remained negligible due to sanctions and Maduro’s resistance to reopening oil trade on American terms. In contrast, China has emerged as Venezuela’s principal crude importer, embedding Caracas deeper into Beijing’s energy supply chains. From Washington’s perspective, a political transition in Venezuela could unlock access to hydrocarbons, rebalance global oil markets, and weaken Chinese and Russian influence in the region.
Promises of transition and reconstruction
Following the strikes, the White House signalled its intent to oversee a “safe, orderly, and judicious” political transition in Venezuela, coupled with plans to revive the country’s oil sector. While framed as economic reconstruction, such promises remain inseparable from the political cost of external intervention. Past US-backed transitions elsewhere have shown that rebuilding economies amid legitimacy deficits and internal polarisation is far from straightforward.
International law and the sovereignty dilemma
Legally, the operation rests on shaky ground. Under international law, the use of force against another state is permitted only with UN Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack. Drug trafficking, however grave, does not meet this threshold. The precedent set in the Nicaragua v United States (1986) case reinforces the principle that support for coercive action against a sovereign state violates customary international law. Legal scholars argue that large-scale strikes and overt regime-change objectives amount to a direct breach of Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Blurring the line between policing and war
By framing military strikes as law-enforcement actions, Washington risks eroding a crucial legal distinction. Analysts warn that if such actions are recognised as armed hostilities, they could expose the US to scrutiny under International Humanitarian Law, particularly in light of civilian harm. The concern, echoed by the UN Secretary-General, is not just about Venezuela but about precedent: once powerful states normalise unilateral force for economic or political risk management, the rules-based international order weakens.
Why this matters beyond Latin America
The episode underscores a broader shift in global politics—from rule-based restraint to power-based enforcement. For smaller and middle powers, it signals that sovereignty may increasingly be conditional, especially where strategic resources and great-power rivalry intersect. For the global system, it raises a stark question: will international law remain anchored in principle, or be reshaped by the preferences of the powerful?
What to note for Prelims?
- Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
- Use of force is restricted under international law without UNSC approval or self-defence.
- Nicaragua v United States (1986) is a key ICJ precedent on sovereignty.
- Drug trafficking alone does not justify cross-border military action.
What to note for Mains?
- Legality of humanitarian or law-enforcement justifications for military intervention.
- Energy geopolitics and regime change in great-power rivalry.
- Erosion of the rules-based international order and implications for global governance.
- Lessons for India in balancing strategic autonomy with international law.
