New imperialism

Even as our part of the globe was gearing up for what seemed like a peaceful weekend, news came in from distant Venezuela about the forced regime change there, undertaken at the behest of an unpredictable United States President Donald Trump.  It came as a complete surprise as Trump announced the “capture” of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.  The US quickly added that Maduro would face drug and terror charges.  Even more shocking was the President›s diktat that the US will run Venezuela until a “safe transition of power”.

The action is extremely dubious.  The ethics of the US capturing Venezuela’s president will be deeply problematic and widely judged as illegitimate under international law.  Abducting a sitting head of state without the host country’s consent violates national sovereignty, the UN Charter, and norms against extraterritorial use of force, setting a precedent that powerful states can seize foreign leaders they deem criminal. Venezuela had been facing a distressed economy for many years.  Even if Maduro is accused of grave crimes, ethical legitimacy rests on due process through international mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court or negotiated extradition, not unilateral action.

Supporters might argue moral urgency if atrocities are ongoing.  Yet, most ethicists see such capture as vigilante geopolitics that erodes the rule-based order and invites retaliation, chaos and even abuse of power.  Making sense of it is quite a challenge and depends on which side of the story one chooses to listen to or supports.

This has been some time in the making. In August 2025, US Attorney General Bondi announced $50m for Maduro’s arrest. While Maduro is known for his autocratic government, the guilt of who›s taking narcotics into America is open to debate.

Trump has promised that Venezuelans will “have peace, justice” and “some of the riches which you should have had for a long period of time, which were stolen from you”.  He promised the creation of a “great country” which would be “run properly” by the US.  He said the “greatest oil companies in the world” would be “investing billions and billions”.  Venezuela has around a fifth of the world’s global oil reserves.

“Cuba is going to be something we are going to talk about.  We want to help the people of Cuba,” Marco Rubio said. «Cuba is a disaster.  It›s run by incompetent, senile men.  All that protected Mudoro were all Cubans,» he added.

Trump threatened a “second wave” of military conflict, if needed.  Is it possible that the US could end up running Venezuela for years?  As Trump has put it, “It won›t cost us anything, as the money coming out of the ground is quite substantial.  The oil companies will go; a lot of money is coming out of the ground.  The people of Venezuela will be the biggest beneficiaries.»

Oil and geopolitics are being read as the causes behind the latest developments. Trump came to power with the promise that his administration would not be getting involved in foreign conflict. Soon, he began flexing his muscles.  Today, his position is that he is not afraid of having “boots on the ground”. Lately, Trump›s message to the outside world is that he›s a President who cannot be trifled with. The military action indicates a change in the foreign and defence policy of the Trump administration. Saturday›s action is similar to the ones the US indulged in in the past. Will it be Cuba next? Trump seems to be on a rampage. But at what cost?  What does this mean for the future of our planet?