Let us all pray for a peaceful world

The United States launching a military attack on Venezuela, capturing its sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, and subjecting them to criminal proceedings in New York on drug charges can’t be supported by any reason and logic.

Analyzing this scenario through the lens of international law, geopolitics, and historical precedent, this immoral act would constitute a flagrant violation of the core principles of the United Nations Charter, including the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)) and the principle of sovereign equality. It would render the UN Security Council’s authorization system obsolete, exposing the organization to accusations of being a puppet of U.S. power.

I argue that the primary rationale for such an action would be the control of hydrocarbon resources – OIL – following a established pattern of intervention in Iraq and Libya. This pattern raises urgent questions about the future of international law, the legitimacy of global institutions, and which nation might be next on the list of targets for regime change under the guise of law enforcement.

From “Lawfare” to Warfare

The U.S. military incursion into Venezuela to forcibly extradite its head of state under criminal charges represents the ultimate convergence of “lawfare”—the use of instruments of war—and unilateral militarism. This ACT expose USA as a architect of a neo-imperial world order where sovereignty is conditional upon geopolitical alignment – the US alignment

The Crumbling Edifice of International Law

A unilateral U.S. attack for the purpose of capturing a foreign leader would have no legal basis. This is essentially an act of kidnapping and aggression.

Sitting heads of state enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of other states’ courts. This is a bedrock principle of the international system, designed to prevent exactly this kind of politicized legal warfare. Its violation would signal a return to a pre-Westphalian “might makes right” paradigm.

With this US attack, the UN is seen as av “Puppet Organization”. The scenario starkly reveals the crisis of multilateralism. If the U.S. can act with such impunity, it demonstrates that the UN system is not a governing framework of laws, but a theater where power is performed. The organization’s inability to restrain its most powerful member state exposes its fundamental dysfunction and subordinate role when core U.S. interests are at stake.

The Rationale of Injustice: Oil, Pattern, and Pretext

The invasions of Iraq (2003) and the NATO-led intervention in Libya (2011) provide the template for this rational of injustice. In both cases, narratives of “weapons of mass destruction” or “humanitarian protection” were deployed, only to be later undermined, revealing outcomes centered on regime change, political fragmentation, and the opening of hydrocarbon (OIL) sectors to foreign capital. The results are devastated states, not liberated ones. Now we see this happening in Venezuela.

My fundamental question: “Is America the enforcer of international law?” is answered by its own actions. An enforcer operates within a system; an aggressor defines the system through force. By unilaterally attaching legal consequences to governments it dislikes and then using military might to execute its own verdicts, the U.S. positions itself as prosecutor, judge, and executioner—a trifecta of power that obliterates the very concept of impartial justice.

The Next Country on the List: A World on Notice

The pattern suggests that the “list” is dynamic, targeting nations that fulfill two criteria:

1) possession of significant strategic resources or geostrategic importance, and

2) a government that asserts independent, anti-hegemonic policies. Beyond Venezuela, other nations that resist alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives and control critical resources or trade routes could find themselves in the crosshairs of hybrid campaigns combining sanctions, lawfare, and ultimately, the threat of force.

The attack on Venezuela is not merely a violation of law; it is an act of political annihilation meant to terrify countries into submission. It declares that sovereignty is a privilege granted by Washington, revocable at will.

What should be our response???

Every country should condemn this criminal act and demand a robust collective resistance/response by nations to assert the primacy of sovereignty of countries. Until then, the world remains governed not by law, but by the doctrine of domination, where ‘today’s accusations are tomorrow’s invasions’, and oil and other resources is forever worth more than sovereignty.

Let us all pray for a PEACEFUL WORLD.

(Pro. Dr. Shrestha is a former campus chief of Thapathali Engineering Campus.)