US Invasion Of Venezuela: Challenges For The World Order And Dilemma For India
Even if there is evidence of Maduro’s involvement in narco-terrorism threatening the US national security, due processes should have been followed to book him.
Published : January 9, 2026 at 9:36 AM IST
|Updated : January 9, 2026 at 5:26 PM IST
The prolonged standoff between the US, led by President Donald Trump, and Venezuela, led by President Nicolas Maduro, eventually led to a US military action on 3rd January 2026, in which President Maduro and his wife were abducted from their home in Caracas and flown to New York for trial on charges of narco-terrorism.
By any standards this audacious act on the part of the USA to use force to arrest a serving President of a sovereign nation (and his wife) and bring them over for prosecution in New York violated the UN Charter and in particular in violation of the globally accepted norms in the conduct of international relations such as respect for the sovereignty of an independent nation and rule of law.
Even if there is evidence of Maduro’s involvement in narco-terrorism threatening the US national security, due processes should have been followed to bring him to book. No single country can assume the role of an international police or judge and take unilateral action, including the use of force.
Unfortunately, the use of force in settling disputes is becoming a norm. In recent years, Azerbaijan’s aggression against Armenia, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Israel’s military operations against Hamas, US bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites are some of the glaring examples. If the concept of “might is right” becomes a norm. The small and militarily weak countries will live under a sense of constant fear.
The world leaders have reacted differently to the US military invasion of Venezuela. Russia, China, Iran, Brazil and some of the Latin American countries have expectedly condemned, whereas the US allies in Europe have been milder, even if they have underlined the importance of adhering to international law. The European Union has refrained from calling out the USA, and much of its statement is devoted to the alleged illegitimacy of the Maduro regime.
India’s response has been assessed as mild; it is in tune with the position India usually adopts in similar situations. In a Press Release, India stated that the “Recent developments in Venezuela are a matter of deep concern. We are closely monitoring the evolving situation. It added that “India reaffirms its support to the well-being and safety of the people of Venezuela. We call upon all concerned to address issues peacefully through dialogue, ensuring peace and stability of the region.”
In other words, India did not call out the USA; nor did it point towards the violation of international norms. However, by recommending that all issues be addressed peacefully by the concerned parties through dialogue, India, by implication, has once again rejected the use of force to achieve political objectives. As a matter of fact, India’s relations with the USA at the moment are going through a delicate phase due to the imposition of penal tariffs on Indian exports to the USA; further, India’s negotiations with the USA on the Free Trade Agreement are at a critical juncture.
Strategic pragmatism requires that India avoid any act which may cause further dents in the vital partnership. It may not be irrelevant to mention that if the relations between the USA and Venezuela stabilise and the US sanctions on Venezuela are lifted, it could open another avenue for India to source its energy needs, while the Indian oil companies can expect a re-entry into the Venezuelan market.
Reverting to the main issue, the matter doesn’t end with the US military action in Venezuela. President Trump has indicated that the US intends to “run” Venezuela and meet the expenses from the revenues from Venezuela’s crude oil resources. Are we returning to the age of colonialism?
The stated reason for the US action in Venezuela is the involvement of Maduro in narco-terrorism, posing a serious threat to US national security. There is a lot more than meets the eye. Trump is obviously interested in gaining control over the vast oil resources of Venezuela, which is known to possess the world’s largest reserves.
He was also not happy with Maduro selling oil to China in Chinese currency. Trump is allergic to the idea of de-dollarisation of the global economy and has repeatedly threatened BRICS members against the possible introduction of a BRICS currency or trading amongst themselves in local currencies and thus challenging the dominance of US Dollars on world markets.
More importantly, Trump has threatened some of its neighbouring countries in Latin America with similar consequences; this is being seen as the reinvention of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) and its rebranding as Donroe Doctrine, the key feature of which is the US dominance in the Western Hemisphere as an area of its exclusive influence.
In short, the US military intervention in Venezuela is in violation of the same international norms in the conduct of international relations, which the US expects the rest of the world to follow; the US has set a dangerous precedent whose consequences can be devastating for the rest of the world. From India’s perspective, any strong position, including the condemnation of the USA, would serve no purpose; on the contrary, it may cause further damage to the already strained relations. The best option for India is therefore to adhere to its oft-stated position that this is not the era of war and that all disputes must be settled peacefully through diplomacy and dialogue.
Read More
