The American attack on Venezuela is not just another geopolitical episode. It is a warning bell for the Global South. In a violently changing world, sovereignty risks becoming an empty word, and multipolarity risks being transformed into a hierarchy of raw power. This shock has rattled the global stage and forced a re-evaluation of established alliances.
A shock that shook the world
On January 3, 2026, the world watched in shock as a series of United States airstrikes were carried out against Venezuela. According to President Donald Trump, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were arrested by American authorities on charges of a "narco-terrorism conspiracy," and the country was placed under temporary American control until a "safe, orderly, and prudent transition" could occur. These claims were rejected by the Venezuelan government and have not been independently verified, highlighting the unilateral nature of the American action.
The operation, codenamed "Operation Absolute Resolve," has reopened the debate on whether this is a regional intervention or a coldly calculated tactical move. For the BRICS nations, this event reveals the fragility of the international legal order. For the rest of the world, it poses a deeper question: what is the utility of the UN as a guardian of global peace and stability? Do international laws and commitments still have meaning, or is the world sliding toward the normalization of legal double standards?
Is the "legal" actually legal?
The UN Charter and a multitude of international law rules explicitly prohibit one state from attacking another without provocation or outside the framework of self-defense. Even then, approval must pass through the Security Council. "Operation Absolute Resolve" meets neither of these two legal criteria, as repeatedly confirmed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, notably in the case of Nicaragua v. United States (1986). That decision was a landmark for the protection of post-colonial states from the interventions of powerful forces and for establishing sovereignty as a fundamental principle.
As persuasive as the humanitarian rhetoric and security narratives of Donald Trump and his supporters may sound, international law does not recognize them as a valid basis for an attack. The US has already paid a heavy price for the misuse of such narratives, as seen in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In similar cases, it has become clear that claims of "legitimization" do not turn illegality into law. The dilemma of legality versus legitimization also emerged during the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, which is often presented as a humanitarian precedent but was described by legal experts as "illegal but legitimate."
A legal rupture for emerging powers
For small and emerging powers, especially the BRICS countries, the American attack on Venezuela is not an abstract moral issue. It is a legal rupture, a violation of an international order that is supposed to limit the hegemony of great powers. Unlike alliances bound by treaties and military guarantees, the BRICS states rely primarily on international law, multilateral institutions, and diplomacy to maintain their strategic autonomy. The erosion of this order makes power imbalances more blunt and harder to manage through regional or international institutions and established diplomatic practices.
China's position in the changing order
In this context, China emerges as a strategic observer with significant weight. Beijing has historically presented itself as a defender of the core principles of the UN Charter—sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-intervention—not only out of idealism but from a realistic understanding that Western interventions and a Western-centric international order threaten its own rise. With every American action in Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela, the Chinese narrative regarding "rules" is strengthened, and its voice in the Global South and within BRICS gains greater resonance.
The weakening of Western credibility in international law provides fertile ground for the Chinese vision of an order with fewer interventions and greater respect for sovereignty. This shift allows Beijing to position itself as a stable alternative to what it characterizes as unpredictable Western hegemony, appealing to nations that feel vulnerable to unilateral military actions.
BRICS and Western double standards
This situation also provides an opportunity for countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa to highlight Western double standards, particularly through the veto policy in the Security Council. If the UN cannot restrain powerful members like the US from blatant violations of its fundamental principles, then what is its role? Its mission should be to maintain a common legal framework that allows even smaller states to claim power. China seems to be carefully adapting to a world that selectively chooses which international law to apply, without openly challenging the UN system. This allows it to move in a zone of legal ambiguity but with a clear strategic direction.
A moment of reckoning
Venezuela serves as a blunt reminder of a world where international law and institutions are treated as tools of convenience and the UN loses its importance as a guarantor of global order. The American attacks show that the powerful are attempting to reshape the world on their own terms. For the BRICS countries, this is a warning of a coming world where sovereignty will be rhetorical and multipolarity will signify a hierarchy of power.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών