On early morning of Saturday (January 3, 2026), the world witnessed a clear violation of the national sovereignty and international law, in which, US forces, at the order of President Donald Trump, invaded Caracas and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro along with his wife.
Meanwhile, reaction of the US’s European allies to this aggressive attack attracted the attention of the world. Their response was neither explicit condemnation nor outright support, but a calculated silence and ambiguous diplomatic language aimed at distancing themselves from any firm stance. The key EU figures Antonio Costa, Ursula von der Leyen, and Kaja Kallas used words like “deep concern,” “restraint,” and “peaceful solution” in their statements, but none dared to mention the United States alongside terms like “aggression,” “violation of international law,” or “illegal military intervention.”
From the perspective of observers, this silence and ambiguity is not only due to indifference, but also the product of careful calculations of Europe's economic interests and geopolitical dependency on Washington, which is now imposing a heavy price on the continent's political and moral credibility.
From double standards to Europe's inaction in face of blatant violations of international law
Comparing the EU’s response to the US attack on Venezuela with its own positions in similar crises draws a shocking picture of double standards. When Russia launched military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, the EU issued statements of condemnation within hours, imposed sweeping sanctions, and spoke of an “unjustified violation of the sovereignty of an independent state.” In the case of Venezuela, however, the same EU that claims to lead the rules-based order refused to even use the words “aggression” or “military intervention” to describe the US action.
Europe’s helplessness and dependency were clearly visible at the EU press conference in Brussels on Monday. When asked repeatedly and sharply by reporters whether they called it an invasion, an intervention or an external coup, European Commission Spokeswoman Anitta Hipper replied: “There was no discussion about what we would call it!” This seemingly innocuous statement is in fact a tacit admission of Europe’s inability or unwillingness to address the reality. When a DW reporter pressed her, “Was this in accordance with international law?” the European official replied, “It is too early to assess the consequences and legal dimensions of the events!”
This is while the legal assessment of a military attack and the kidnapping of the president of a sovereign state does not require “more time”; the UN Charter, in Article 2, paragraph 4, explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. But instead of citing this obvious principle, Europe preferred to hide behind words like “opportunity for democratic transition.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also emphasized that London had "no role" in this operation, refraining from condemning the US action and only saying, "We have always emphasized the need to respect international law." This type of clichéd statement, when placed alongside silence about the blatant violation of those same principles, is more than anything else a sign of political humiliation.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who initially expressed happiness over what he called the "liberation of the Venezuelan people from dictatorial rule," was forced to declare after domestic criticism that "the method used by the United States is neither approved nor supported by Paris," but he still distanced from outright condemnation.
This double-standard behavior sends a clear message to the world that international law matters to Europe only when the West’s strategic interests are not at stake. When a rival like Russia is accused, Europe judges immediately, but when its strategic ally, the United States, commits the same act, it prefers to ask for “more time to assess.”
Many actors, including China and Russia, have questioned the approach taken by the West, especially Europe. Beijing announced in a statement that “the West only defends international law when it benefits it,” while Moscow emphasized that “this action shows that international law is merely a tool for the West to suppress others.”
Economic and geopolitical interests: the hidden motives of Brussels leaders
Experts believe that Europe's silence on the US action against Venezuela is not due to inattention or ignorance, but rather the product of careful calculations of economic interests and geopolitical dependencies. With the world's largest oil reserves, Venezuela has always been in the spotlight and focal attention of major powers. Europe, which is seeking to diversify its energy sources after ending its dependency on the Russian oil and gas, cannot accept the risk of losing access to Venezuelan resources.
The US sanctions against Maduro’s administration had repeatedly put Europe in a difficult position. On the one hand, some European countries, especially Spain and Italy, wanted to maintain relations due to historical and economic ties with Venezuela, but on the other hand, Washington's pressure to go along with the sanctions left no choice but to comply. Now, the United States has directly intervened and taken over the administration of Venezuela, Europe hopes that by tacitly supporting this action, it can secure its share in the new Venezuelan power structure.
But beyond oil, Europe's economic dependency on the United States is a more key factor for this silence. During his presidency, Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened Europe with tariffs and referred to the European Union as a "trade enemy." In such circumstances, any stance against Washington's policies could cost dearly for the Europe and also could lead to the trade and economic tensions with the United States. Europe, whose economy is still suffering from the consequences of the coronavirus, the war in Ukraine, and the energy crisis, cannot afford the risk of American economic sanctions.
Moreover, Europe needs US security and strategic support in its geopolitical competition with China and Russia. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is the backbone of European security, is unthinkable without Washington’s leadership. In such circumstances, Europe cannot accept the risk weakening strategic ties with the United States, even if this means ignoring blatant violations of the international law.
Future costs; political-security and moral consequences for Europe
Europe's choice to remain silent in the face of the US attack on Venezuela may benefit the Europe’s economic and strategic interests in the short term, but in the long term, it will impose heavy costs on Europe's political, moral, and even security credibility.
The first and most important consequence is the loss of Europe’s credibility in the global South. Countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, which have witnessed the West’s ambivalence towards international law for years, are now faced with more concrete evidence. Left-wing parties in Europe, from Ireland to Spain, have called the US move “imperialist aggression” and have called on European governments to take a clear position. The Irish Labor Party and the Irish left-wing party People Before Profit have issued separate statements saying that the move shows that the West only thinks about its own interests and sees international law as a tool to justify its policies. Although these criticisms originate from within Europe, they have a wide resonance in the global South and will further weaken Europe’s position on the international stage.
The second consequence is the weakening of Europe’s position in defending human rights and democracy. Europe has for decades presented itself as a defender of democratic values, calling on other countries to respect human rights, freedom of expression, and the rule of law. But silence in the face of the kidnapping of the president of a sovereign and independent country sends a clear message that these values only matter when they align with Western interests.
The third consequence is the long-term consequences for the multilateral system. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and other international institutions that Europe has repeatedly defended as pillars of the global order now face a more serious challenge. If a great power can invade another country with impunity and kidnap its president and put him on trial without an international warrant, what meaning does the UN Charter have? By its silence, Europe is actually helping to weaken the very institutions it claims to support.
The fourth consequence is the impact on Europe's own security. If Europe accepts today that the United States can attack a country without respecting international law, what guarantee is there tomorrow that this precedent will not be used against Europe itself? If the principle of "national sovereignty" and "non-interference in the internal affairs of countries" is violated so easily, no country can be confident in its security. This is the same logic that shaped the UN Charter after World War II, but is now collapsing with Europe's silence.
Finally (fifth consequence), Europe’s silence today will destroy its ability to protest tomorrow. If Europe cannot raise its voice against the blatant violation of international law by its strategic ally, how can it expect other countries to pay attention to its positions? Moral credibility is not gained overnight, but it can be lost forever with a calculated silence. A weak and dependent Europe can no longer call itself the leader of the free world, because at a critical moment it preferred short-term interests over long-term principles.
Generally speaking, the harsh reality is that with this choice, Europe not only lost its credibility, but also helped to entrench the very power-centric logic it claimed to be fighting. Europe's moral collapse in Venezuela marked a new chapter in the collapse of the Europe’s claim to value-based leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment