About Trump’s kidnap of Maduro

_______________

OPINION

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

On January 3, 2026, American President Donald J. Trump announced the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela.

This followed a joint US military extraction in Caracas, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve. Both Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro, who was kidnapped alongside him, are now facing criminal prosecution in New York based on a 2020 indictment by the US Department of Justice.

They are charged with several offences, including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. In court, Maduro pleaded not guilty to the charges. He maintained that he was a kidnapped head of state, not a criminal.

Politically, these events seem peculiarly “Trumpist,” and whereas they have Trump’s signature of unconventionality, they are not new in the conduct of American foreign policy. It is difficult to claim that America has been an international law-abiding country before Trump.

Trump is simply blunt, unsophisticated, or, we can say, honest, about what he does. Any other American President would have done what Trump did and not got much personal attention because they would insincerely hide behind claims of fighting for democracy and human rights, rather than seeking regime change to benefit American selfish interests. And even though Trump has claimed to have been partly influenced by the need to fight narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, he is mostly blunt about the fact that he did this to take control of Venezuela’s oil from the Chinese and Russians, and is already discussing with oil executives about going in to do business.

We can note multiple previous events where America has deposed legitimate leaders under various pretexts. For instance, George H. W. Bush in December 1989 invaded, deposed, and captured Gen Manuel Noriega of Panama on claims of racketeering and drug-trafficking. So, the Maduro episode is just part of an old American script. What Trump may earn from the claims of fighting drug trafficking is domestic support, since he wins approval from a large constituency of Americans who are concerned about border security and immigration from countries like Venezuela. It also domestically legitimises his absolutely illegal operation.

Internationally, there has also been backlash against Trump by both Western and non-Western countries. Politicians in the United Kingdom and Australia, both American allies, have issued statements and parliamentary briefings questioning the operation. This event indeed creates a reference point for any other country in a position to bully a weaker neighbour to do so under similar excuses as America’s. This also indicts Western countries, which galvanised for war and sanctioned Russia under claims that Putin had breached international law by invading Ukraine, yet they cannot lift a finger against Trump, who kidnapped a legitimate President. It shows how hypocritical global politics can be, where selfish interests are presented and defended as global values and norms. Of course, countries like Russia, China and Iran strongly stand opposed to America’s actions in Venezuela and issued diplomatic protests. For countries in Latin America, fears have been exacerbated for what could happen to any of them since Trump is now proclaiming the “Donroe Doctrine” in line with the Monroe Doctrine under which America claimed entitlement to its “backyard” in the Western hemisphere, where all these countries are situated. The Cuban President, Miguel Díaz-Canel, obviously one of Trump’s targets now, sent a strong protest message to Washington against their actions in Venezuela.

Another political effect of this event is that a power vacuum has been created in Venezuela. There are already clear signs of power friction in the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). The interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, seems to lack approval from her peers, who reasonably may perceive her as an agent of the Americans. She has already shown signs of cosying up to Trump, who has been emphatic about the intention to have a friendly regime in Venezuela. Instability could likely emerge from these fault lines. Whether that creates space for strong opposition candidates, especially Juan Guaidó, to emerge or America will forcefully dictate who remains in charge is left to future history. Nevertheless, Trump announced that America would “temporarily” run Venezuela, with the responsibility to oversee this being under the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.

Economically, whereas the events have made for dramatic headlines, there have not been fundamental shifts in the global oil market. This may be a sign of the growing energy diversification and resilience of the world. Oil is no longer as significant in the global power play as it was 20 years ago. Superiority is now measured in cutting edge advancements in green energy generation and harvesting, where China leads. However, to look at the issue more specifically, Venezuela’s oil is notorious for being heavy and sour crude. It therefore requires specialised refining equipment and technical expertise to extract and refine. This renders the operations capital-intensive and operationally complex. Therefore, whereas Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, it may not be commercially viable to exploit them due to challenges of profitability emanating from the issues above. Whether Trump’s advisers took this into perspective before encouraging him to go on with this operation is left to speculation.

Into the bargain, there is so much political uncertainty for American oil companies to consider before spending their capital in Venezuela. It is not certain whether the transition government will hold. Whoever invests there, therefore, is making a huge gamble both on the commercial and political viability of Venezuelan oil and stability, respectively.

I would like to conclude with a reflection on the legality of Trump’s abduction and trial of a head of state. These actions breach international law, extraterritorial jurisdiction and due process. Trump violated the principles of the UN Charter on non-intervention in affairs of another sovereign country, and obviously, the abuse of Venezuela’s territorial integrity. Western countries shouted themselves hoarse over the “aggression” of Russia in Ukraine. They called for Putin to be arraigned before the ICC. Now they have an opportunity for the most apparent form of aggression, where a head of state was abducted from sovereign territory. We await their sanctions against America, in vain. Principles of customary international law, which provide for immunity of a head of state as a core issue, seem not to apply to the U.S. America has unanimously abused international law in Venezuela. It is an international low of historic proportions. International law is anarchical. Anarchy has been experienced in Venezuela. Anarchy is at our doorsteps.

The writer is a Senior research fellow, Development Watch Centre