The Tribune

IN A  MILITARY operation, the United States abducted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from their home in Caracas. Maduro and Flores are now being held at the Metropolitan Detention Centre in Brooklyn, New York. They were taken to court on Monday, January 5. Maduro, when asked to confirm his identity, stated that he was kidnapped on January 3, and was cut off by the judge.

Discussions about the abduction and the subsequent statement by the US president about “running” Venezuela are going in many different directions. Some people, very unfortunately, believe it’s an attempt to bring stability to Venezuela, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Others believe it’s a move to control the oil. Still others see it going even further than oil, using it to inflate the value of the US dollar. Some point to the US fear of BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and trade outside of the US.

This is certainly not about establishing a legitimate government in Venezuela.

There’s a tremendous amount of history to digest on the subject to fully understand what took place on January 3 and the path that not only Venezuela, but the world, is on. Venezuela has experienced economic booms and busts since the discovery of oil in the Maracaibo Basin in the 1920s.

In the 1970s, the oil embargo imposed by the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on countries backing Israel, led to an exponential increase in oil prices and revenue in Venezuela. In 1976, President Carlos Andrés Pérez created Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), nationalising the oil industry and securing 60 percent equity in joint ventures.

Oil prices dropped in the 1980s, which significantly impacted the Venezuelan economy and led to a financial bailout by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 1998, Hugo Chávez became president and his decisions, including gutting PDVSA, led to a decline in the oil industry and the conditions for an authoritarian regime.

In 2007, the oil industry was partially nationalised, and foreign companies were required to partner with Venezuelan companies, which had to hold 50 percent ownership. Exxon sued for damages over nationalisation and Venezuela was ordered to pay $1.4 million. This was later annulled. Exxon resubmitted its claim and was awarded $76 million in 2023.

Maduro succeeded Chávez and maintained his position in 2018, in an election that was considered undemocratic. Economic sanctions were imposed by the US government in 2017.

In recent years, Venezuela has experienced a decline in oil production, increased debt, hyperinflation, and increasing autocracy. Within the last year, we have seen María Machado—previously funded to overthrow Chávez—dedicate her Nobel Peace Prize to the US president, attacks on Venezuelan boats, threats to the national security of Venezuela, and leveraging of Trinidad and Tobago’s land, sea, and airspace.

The abduction of the president of Venezuela is an act of imperialism.

It is an overreach of the United States, extending power over another territory through military force. The US is attempting to display and exercise dominance over a sovereign country—one that has independent power to govern itself. And Venezuela is not a standalone case. It is, in fact, emblematic of a nefarious ambition to control resources and people.

“Gaza exposed the hollowness of western universalism, liberalism and globalisation,” Middle East Eye’s Sami Al-Arian wrote. “Venezuela extends the lesson into the western hemisphere, with a clarity that even allies cannot easily obscure. When legality is enforced only against opponents, as Gaza and Venezuela show, it ceases to function as law and becomes an instrument of power. And when aggression is openly linked to oil, empire stops pretending to be anything else.”

In response to alleged human rights violations in Venezuela, the United Nations Human Rights Council established the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in September 2019.

Expert member of that mission, Alex Neve, was blunt in his assessment of the situation in the January 2026 report, titled “Venezuela: UN Fact-Finding Mission expresses grave concern following US military intervention and calls for accountability for human rights violations and crimes.

“The Maduro government’s longstanding record of grave human rights violations does not justify a US military intervention that breaches international law. Similarly, the illegality of the US attack does not in any way diminish the clear responsibility of Venezuelan officials, including Mr. Maduro, for years of repression and violence amounting to crimes against humanity. The Venezuelan people require and deserve solutions that fully comply with international law.”

The report expressed concern about the increased risk of human rights violations in Venezuela in the coming weeks, particularly as the United States government stated its intent to “run” Venezuela.

In a Facebook post on January 3, Menominee author, organiser, and educator Kelly Hayes was equally critical of the US government’s action, calling it a “fascist imperial power grab with implications for future foreign policy moves.” She noted that it’s also an indicator of the direction US democracy is taking. Hayes said the US president is acting out his fascist fantasies.

“We can hold compassion for the range of emotions Venezuelans may be experiencing — including positive emotions — and also be clear that regime change by a fascist superpower is dangerous, destabilising, and sets precedents that will not stop at Venezuela. Those aren’t contradictory positions,” she said.

Recognising the sovereignty of a country is not optional, regardless of the view anyone has of the way it governs itself. Foreign invasion does not bring great leadership. It’s for the people to rise up and stand together to create change. We need not see the Venezuelan case play out as the US intends, to understand that foreign invasion is dangerous and chaotic, negatively affects control of resources, prioritises extraction, and disproportionately impacts people in situations of vulnerability.

In her response to the January 3 press conference held by the US president, Venezuela-born campaign coordinator of CODEPINK Michelle Ellner made important points about the effects of war, sanctions, and military escalation.

“They fall hardest on women, children, the elderly, and the poor. They mean shortages of medicine and food, disrupted healthcare systems, rising maternal and infant mortality, and the daily stress of survival in a country forced to live under siege. They also mean preventable deaths, people who die not because of natural disaster or inevitability, but because access to care, electricity, transport, or medicine has been deliberately obstructed. Every escalation compounds existing harm and increases the likelihood of loss of life, civilian deaths that will be written off as collateral, even though they were foreseeable and avoidable.”

Ellner went on to challenge the assumptions made about the Venezuelan people: that they are and will be passive. With resistance, under circumstances like those created in recent days, comes a violence that is manufactured by oppressive forces, though often framed as unreasonable and caused by those who refuse to submit. The lack of unity in a country is not and cannot be a license for imposition by another.

“This moment demands political maturity, not purity tests,” Ellner said. “You can oppose Maduro and still oppose US aggression. You can want change and still reject foreign control. You can be angry, desperate, or hopeful, and still say no to being governed by another country.”

Do we live in a world where it is acceptable for one country to claim the right to control another?

What does it mean when a country can enact violence, operate outside of the law, and deem itself an authority on another country?

What are we called to do in the face of the genocide in Palestine and the imperialist threat to Venezuela?

"Power has displaced law, preference has replaced principle and force has been presented as virtue,” Howard University School of Law Professor Ziyad Motala wrote in Al Jazeera. “This is not the defence of the international order. It is its quiet execution. When a state kidnaps the law to justify kidnapping a leader, it does not uphold order. It advertises contempt for it.”

People are sharing opinions on this situation without sufficient information. It takes time and effort to access accurate information, process it, and come to a strong position. It’s easier—and irresponsible—to make assumptions based on headlines and snippets being passively shared on social media. In a Facebook post, Kelly Hayes reminded people that we need not make enemies of one another.

“The ignorance of folks who are flailing in their efforts to make sense of this moment does not make them the enemies[…] They are poor stand-ins for your actual enemies.”

This, of course, is not permission to shirk the responsibility to share information, challenge positions, and speak in support of human rights and the international laws that promote, protect, and uphold them.

It is a call to see the violent systems and the people who uphold them for exactly what they are, and to dismantle those systems in the interest of all.