Analysis of: US raid on Venezuela ‘undermined a fundamental principle of international law’, says UN rights body – live
The Guardian | January 6, 2026
The US military seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro represents a stark reassertion of imperialist power in Latin America, driven fundamentally by control over petroleum resources rather than the stated concerns about democracy or drug trafficking. Trump's explicit statement that US taxpayers would fund oil infrastructure rebuilding while major oil companies would 'get reimbursed through revenue' reveals the naked material interests underlying humanitarian rhetoric. The operation demonstrates how international law functions asymmetrically—binding weaker nations while powerful states act with impunity, committing what legal experts call 'the crime of aggression.' The class dynamics are particularly revealing in Washington's treatment of the Venezuelan opposition. Despite María Corina Machado's Nobel Peace Prize and apparent electoral victory, the Trump administration dismissed her as lacking 'support' and instead works with Delcy Rodríguez, a Maduro loyalist deemed more 'professional' to work with. This exposes how US intervention serves not Venezuelan democratic aspirations but the installation of compliant management for resource extraction. The opposition's 'bitter disappointment' illustrates how local bourgeois movements are instrumentalized then discarded when they don't serve metropolitan capital's immediate interests. The international response reveals deepening contradictions in the post-1945 global order. While the UN, China, Brazil, and numerous nations condemn the violation of sovereignty, Western allies like Britain carefully avoid calling the action illegal, prioritizing alliance maintenance over international law. This differential treatment—where violations by US adversaries demand condemnation while US actions receive diplomatic equivocation—undermines the legitimacy of international institutions and, as critics note, may embolden similar actions by Russia or China against their neighbors.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus and military, Major US oil corporations, Venezuelan state and military, Venezuelan opposition bourgeoisie (Machado movement), Venezuelan working class and political prisoners, International capitalist states (EU, UK), Rising powers (China, Russia, Brazil), UN institutional bureaucracy
Beneficiaries: US oil corporations gaining access to Venezuelan reserves, US military-industrial complex, Trump administration politically, Venezuelan elites willing to collaborate with US interests, Delcy Rodríguez and accommodationist faction
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan working class facing instability and militarization, Venezuelan political prisoners (863 reported), Venezuelan opposition expecting democratic transition, International legal order and sovereignty norms, Smaller nations vulnerable to similar interventions, Colombian and other regional populations facing escalating threats
The operation demonstrates unilateral US military supremacy over weaker states, while revealing tensions between metropolitan capital (US) and its junior partners (EU allies forced into uncomfortable positions). The dismissal of Machado shows how local bourgeois opposition movements remain subordinate to imperial priorities—useful for legitimizing intervention but expendable when direct control is preferred.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Control of world's largest proven oil reserves, Over $100 billion in Chinese loans to Venezuela creating competing claims, US oil infrastructure investment and reimbursement scheme, Drug trafficking networks and their economic flows, Regional resource competition including Colombian oil
The seizure aims to restructure Venezuela's oil production relations, transitioning from state-controlled extraction (with Chinese partnership) to US corporate management. Trump's statement about oil companies being 'reimbursed' reveals a model where public military force secures private profit—socializing the costs of conquest while privatizing the returns. The working class bears both the violence of intervention and the extraction of surplus value from their labor and resources.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan petroleum reserves (largest globally), Oil extraction and shipping infrastructure, Strategic Caribbean shipping lanes, Regional political influence, Greenland's resources (explicitly linked by Trump), Colombian oil reserves (threatened next)
Historical Context
Precedents: 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, 1973 Chilean coup against Allende, 2003 Iraq invasion for oil access, Monroe Doctrine territorial claims, Panama invasion and Noriega capture (1989), Nuremberg definition of crimes of aggression
This action continues the long pattern of US intervention in Latin America to secure resource extraction and prevent alternative development models. The explicit linking to Greenland and threats against Colombia signals a broader reassertion of Monroe Doctrine principles. However, unlike Cold War interventions, this occurs amid declining US hegemony—China's substantial investments in Venezuela represent competing imperial interests, making this partly an inter-imperialist conflict over spheres of influence rather than purely US-vs-periphery dynamics.
Contradictions
Primary: The US justifies intervention through human rights and democracy rhetoric while simultaneously dismissing the democratic opposition (Machado) and installing a Maduro loyalist (Rodríguez), exposing that the actual goal is compliant resource management rather than Venezuelan self-determination.
Secondary: Western allies caught between condemning illegal aggression and maintaining US alliance, UN human rights office noting Maduro's abuses while condemning the intervention that removed him, Venezuelan opposition winning apparent election but being sidelined by their supposed liberators, International law claims to bind all states equally while enforcement is radically asymmetric, State of emergency in Venezuela suspending rights supposedly being protected by intervention
The contradictions are likely to intensify rather than resolve. The installation of a collaborative regime will not address underlying class conflicts in Venezuela, while the precedent of impunity may accelerate similar actions against Colombia, Cuba, or in Greenland. The international order faces a legitimacy crisis—either it applies equally to all states or it functions openly as great power domination. China and Russia may use this precedent to justify their own interventions, potentially fracturing the post-WWII framework entirely.
Global Interconnections
This intervention must be understood within the context of intensifying inter-imperialist competition between the US and China. Venezuela's $100 billion in Chinese loans and Maduro's meeting with Chinese delegates hours before capture indicate this was partly about disrupting Chinese economic penetration of the Western hemisphere. The simultaneous threats against Greenland (Danish territory with strategic Arctic resources) and Colombia reveal a coordinated reassertion of US hemispheric dominance as global hegemony declines. The differential Western response—condemning Russian violations of Ukrainian sovereignty while equivocating on US violations of Venezuelan sovereignty—exposes international law as a tool of power rather than a neutral framework. This asymmetry undermines the ideological legitimacy of the 'rules-based international order' that Western states claim to defend, potentially accelerating the multipolar fragmentation already underway. For working classes globally, this demonstrates that neither international institutions nor bourgeois legal frameworks provide protection against imperial violence when material interests are at stake.
Conclusion
The Venezuela operation crystallizes the current historical moment: declining US hegemony responds with increasingly brazen military assertions while the ideological cover of human rights and international law becomes transparently instrumental. For working-class movements, key lessons emerge: local bourgeois opposition movements (like Machado's) cannot be reliable vehicles for liberation when they depend on imperial backing, international institutions offer no protection against great power aggression, and resource wealth under capitalist relations attracts intervention rather than development. The path forward requires building genuinely independent working-class organizations capable of resisting both domestic authoritarianism and imperial intervention—recognizing that these often operate as complementary rather than opposing forces in maintaining capitalist extraction.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 92%