RIGHT ANGLE – Why Maduro’s capture is a slap in the face of the United Nations

More than anything else, the U.S. invasion of Venezuela and the capture of its President Nicolás Maduro is the latest manifestation of the trend that makes the existence of the United Nations (U.N.) irrelevant in its present form.

Critics do seem to have a strong point when they argue that frequent unilateral attacks on sovereign countries and the unilateral imposition of economic sanctions are an affront to the U.N. by undermining the principles of collective security, multilateralism, and the rule of law enshrined in the U.N. Charter.

The U.N. Charter is the principal document governing the legal actions of its member nations. Article 2 of the Charter, paragraph 3, says: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

The following paragraph 4 of Article 2 says: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

Paragraph 7 then says: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”.

Incidentally, Chapter VII of the Charter (Articles 39 to 51) deals with “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”.

Article 44 says: “When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member’s armed forces”.

However, it may be noted that Article 51 makes room for an exception in case of self-defense. It says; “ Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Going by the above provisions of the world body, Trump’s invasion of Venezuela is based on shifting and shaky justifications (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/venezuela-trumps-shifting-explanations-military-buildup/story?id=128864481). So much so that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said he was “deeply alarmed” about the “dangerous precedent” the United States was setting and the rules of international law not being respected.

But then, the Secretary General may not be correct when he says that the US has set a “dangerous precedent”. In fact, there have been many such invasions by the U.S. and its NATO allies over the last 50 years, bypassing the U.N. Charter.

The following examples prove the above point :

• In 1965, US President Lyndon Johnson sent more than 22,000 US troops to the Dominican Republic to prevent the return of former President Juan Bosch, overthrown in a 1963 coup.

• In 1983, President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of Grenada, following the violent overthrow and execution of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop of Grenada.

• In 1989, President George H.W. Bush launched a full-scale invasion of Panama involving about 24,000 US troops to remove General Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted on drug-trafficking charges (like Venezuelan President Maduro). He was subsequently flown to the United States, tried, and imprisoned.

• In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes (Operation Infinite Reach) against al-Qaeda targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in response to embassy bombings, acting unilaterally.

• In 1999, NATO, led by the U.S., conducted a 78-day bombing campaign in Yugoslavia/Kosovo without UN Security Council approval.

• In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The invasion was based on arguments of preemption and alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, sparking a major international debate.

• In 2004, Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from power and flown to Africa in what he described as a US-orchestrated coup and “kidnapping”.

• In 2022, French and Haitian officials told The New York Times that France and the US had collaborated to remove him.

• In June 2025, the Trump administration launched airstrikes against three nuclear sites in Iran without UN authorization.

As noted scholar Robert L Homes, renowned Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Rochester, has argued elsewhere, far from showing the U.N. at its best, the U.S. interventions “showed a weak and vacillating Security Council that allowed itself to be used by the U.S. for its own purposes. Those purposes, on the most charitable reading, were those of national interest. Less charitably, they were those of a neo-impreriaslim”.

It is also true that Russia has also unilaterally attacked Ukraine, and China threatens to do so against Taiwan. But the Western countries led by the United States, which talk of democracy and the importance of legally established orders, have violated the UN Charter the most to force their will on others.

Similarly, while the Charter does not forbid all sanctions, unilateral economic sanctions often conflict with the U.N.’s principles like sovereign equality and non-intervention, as they bypass U.N. Security Council authorization, violating the spirit of collective security. They lack a legal basis and are seen as undermining international law and sovereignty, prompting numerous General Assembly condemnations.

In fact, unilateral coercive measures such as trade embargoes, financial restrictions, or targeted sanctions have long been a concern at the United Nations (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/ucm/2025-12-04-pr-ucm-international-law-lifted.pdf#:~:text=We%20underline%20that%20unilateral%20coercive%20measures%20are,respect%20for%20human%20rights%20and%20fundamental%20freedoms).

The number of developing countries impacted by unilateral measures is significant and continues to climb, reflecting an accelerating trend.

Unilateral measures curtail economies, hinder “the Sustainable Development Goals,” and worsen humanitarian conditions. They disrupt supply chains, including those for energy, health, agriculture and food items, with the most vulnerable disproportionately affected.

Instances of US and Western powers imposing unilateral sanctions that have faced criticism for their consistency with the UN Charter and general international law include:

Cuba: The comprehensive economic embargo imposed by the United States since the early 1960s has been consistently condemned by the UN General Assembly in numerous annual resolutions, which state that the unilateral coercive measures violate international obligations under the U.N. Charter.

Iran: The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and the subsequent “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign were widely criticized by other parties to the agreement (including European allies) and U.N. experts.

Iraq: In the 1990s, the comprehensive UN sanctions were imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. While initially UN-mandated, the continuation and impact raised significant ethical and legal questions regarding proportionality and civilian suffering, prompting the establishment of the “Oil-for-Food” program. Critics have pointed to the impact of sanctions on civilians as potentially violating humanitarian principles.

Venezuela: The US has also imposed various sanctions on Venezuela aimed at pressuring the government for political change. U.N. human rights experts have voiced deep concern that these measures exacerbate the country’s economic crisis and violate human rights, arguing that regime change through economic pressure is not an accepted practice of international relations.

Russia: Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the US and its Western allies imposed extensive unilateral sanctions. And what is worse, by flouting all rules, including those of the World Trade Organization(WTO, they have sanctioned countries like India for its business with Russia.

If anything, all these examples prove that sovereignty can be set aside when inconvenient and the most powerful decide which governments may exist and which international rule of law should prevail.

In other words, the United Nations has not been effective in ensuring an orderly world in which all states, regardless of their size or power, enjoy equal rights and obligations. The world seems to have recognized that might is right and that it is governed by force, not the law.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the U.N. has failed not only in preventing wars but also in ending the ongoing wars. It has been unable to set global standards.

In that sense, whatever has happened in Venezuela – seizing a head of state without legal sanction by the U.N. – sets a dangerous precedent not only for great powers, but for regional actors.

But, then, if the U.N. is becoming irrelevant in its present form, then that is primarily because any one of its so-called five permanent members can block resolutions, often for self-interest, thanks to the so-called veto power. The Security Council’s composition reflects 1945 power, not today’s world, leading, rightly, to calls for reform to include more nations like India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and one from Africa.

(This piece was first published in the Eurasian Times)