Venezuela After the Abduction of Maduro; Is the International Order on the Verge of Collapse?

SCFR Online – Interview: Three months have passed since the operation by US special forces in Caracas – an operation in which Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, was abducted and transferred to New York. To examine the legal, political, and economic dimensions of this unprecedented event and its consequences, we have interviewed Soroosh Salami, an expert on Latin American affairs.

Question: From the perspective of international law, how can the US action in abducting Maduro be characterized?

Answer: From three independent angles, this action was completely illegal. First, deploying military forces into the territory of a sovereign state without authorization from the Security Council or the consent of the host government is a clear instance of “aggression” under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The US argument that this was an “enforcement of domestic law” is legally untenable. The International Court of Justice, in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), clearly emphasized that there is no exception for the unilateral enforcement of domestic laws in the territory of another state.

Second, at the time of his abduction, Maduro was the sitting president. Under customary international law and the Hague Court’s ruling in the Arrest Warrant case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002), heads of state enjoy absolute immunity. This immunity persists even for accusations of international crimes as long as the individual remains in office.

Third, the exercise of executive jurisdiction – meaning arrest – on the territory of another state is completely prohibited. The abduction of Eichmann by the Mossad in Argentina (1960), which was met with global condemnation, demonstrates that even for those accused of crimes against humanity, unilateral action is impermissible. The US is effectively dismantling the post-World War II order.

Question: The Americans claim Maduro is accused of drug trafficking to the US. Is that justification unacceptable as well?

Answer: This justification is legally absurd. No matter how serious the drug trafficking charges, they do not authorize a violation of a state’s sovereignty and the abduction of its president. If we accept this logic, then any powerful country could attack the territory of other states by leveling accusations against their leaders. This would be a return to the “right of the strongest sovereign” – a principle the international community abandoned after two world wars. In the words of some experts, we are witnessing a “dangerous departure from a rule-based order toward a system based on force.”

Question: Many believe the US motive goes beyond legal issues and their claimed “war on drugs.” What is your view?

Answer: Exactly. Let’s be honest. Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves. It also contains the Orinoco Mining Arc, which is full of gold, diamonds, bauxite, nickel, and most importantly, coltan – the raw material for mobile phone, laptop, and electric vehicle batteries, upon which the 21st-century economy depends.

Question: In other words, you are saying the US directly intends to plunder these resources?

Answer: Not just intends – it is practically implementing a plunder operation. Let me clarify the three layers of this game for you:

Layer one, blockage and extortion: Since 2018, the Bank of England has blocked approximately $3 billion of Venezuela’s gold. What was the pretext? The non-recognition of the Maduro government. After Maduro’s abduction, the US Secretary of the Interior (Homeland Security) traveled directly to Caracas and, by promising sanctions relief in exchange for US companies’ access to gold mines, effectively engaged in “economic extortion.”

Layer two, changing laws: Only three months after the coup, the Venezuelan parliament, under pressure from Washington, passed a new mining law opening the mining sector to private investment. Doug Burgum, the US Secretary of the Interior (Homeland Security), upon returning from Caracas, proudly stated: “We’re excited to bring gold home to America.”

Layer three, replicating the Colombia model: And here we reach the painful point of the matter.

Question: You are referring to Plan Colombia?

Answer: Yes. Since 2000, the US has invested over $10 billion in the framework of “Plan Colombia,” ostensibly to combat drugs and rebuild institutions. What was the result? Armed groups like the ELN and FARC dominate mining regions, and thousands of social leaders and environmental activists who opposed extraction by foreign companies have been assassinated. Now, the exact same model is being implemented in Venezuela: first destabilization, then military intervention, then legal changes, and finally resource plunder with the cooperation of influential local elements.

Question: The Wall Street Journal article you also mentioned speaks of a “Plan Venezuela” with a budget of $15-20 billion over a decade. In your view, will this money truly be used for Venezuela’s reconstruction?

Answer: We must learn from Colombia’s experience. The US claims it will use Venezuela’s own resources – for example, $5 billion of the country’s funds at the IMF and $4.8 billion of gold blocked in England. But this money belongs to the Venezuelan people themselves! This is like someone locking your house and then saying, “If you cooperate with me, I will give you back part of your own house.” This is extortion on a national scale.

Question: If the international community remains passive, what is the outlook for Venezuela?

Answer: Very dark. Let me outline three timeframes:

In the short term (next 6 months to 2 years): Venezuela will become a battleground for armed groups. The ELN and remnants of the FARC, who already control mining areas, will fill the power vacuum. Competition between these groups and US-affiliated forces over gold and coltan mines will lead to widespread bloodshed.

In the medium term (2 to 5 years): The foundations of international law will collapse. The US success in violating Venezuela’s sovereignty without an effective response will set a precedent that other major powers will also exploit. Why couldn’t China attack Taiwan under the pretext of fighting terrorism? Why couldn’t Russia attack Baltic states under the pretext of human rights violations? The gates of hell will open.

In the long term (5 to 10 years): Venezuela will become a “second Colombia” – a country experiencing decades of civil war, drug trafficking, and resource plunder. The difference is that Venezuela, due to its coltan reserves, is a larger and more strategic prey. Several generations in Venezuela will live in poverty and violence, while their country’s resources are transferred to foreign companies.

Question: What reaction is expected from the international community?

Answer: First, the UN Security Council must condemn this action as “aggression” and adopt a resolution to return Maduro and release Venezuela’s blocked assets. Second, the International Criminal Court must open a case to investigate the “crime of aggression” by US officials. Third, Latin American countries must form a united front to defend the principle of sovereignty.

Question: But are such actions practical, given the US veto in the Security Council?

Answer: The reality is bitter. But silence is even more catastrophic. If the international community, even through other bodies like the UN General Assembly or the Organization of American States, does not react decisively, the message will be: “Might has replaced law.” Venezuela will not be the first or last victim.

Venezuelans have the right to determine their own destiny and the fate of their country’s resources, not Washington. Abducting a president, stealing a country’s gold and coltan, and imposing war and instability under the pretext of a “war on drugs” – all of these are crimes. History will judge, but the Venezuelan people will pay the price.