US Venezuela Crisis

The US Venezuela Crisis marks a dramatic point in relations between the United States and Venezuela, with wider ramifications for sovereignty norms, international law, and power politics in the Western Hemisphere. Read here to learn more.

In January 2026, the United States conducted “Operation Absolute Resolve”, a military operation in Caracas that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The episode has fundamentally altered US Venezuela relations and raised critical questions about sovereignty, international law, regime change, narco terrorism, and great-power rivalry in the Western Hemisphere.

Venezuela’s Prolonged Crisis

Venezuela has been engulfed in a political, economic, and humanitarian crisis for over a decade.

• Economic collapse:
  • Hyperinflation, currency devaluation, and food shortages
  • Oil production fell from 3.5 million barrels/day (1990s) to about 900,000 barrels/day (2025)
• Humanitarian fallout:
  • Nearly 8 million Venezuelans migrated abroad, creating regional refugee pressures
• Political contestation:
  • Nicolás Maduro, in power since 2013, faced legitimacy challenges
  • The 2024 elections were widely questioned internationally
  • The US and over 50 countries withdrew recognition of Maduro, though he retained power with military backing and support from Cuba, China, and Russia.

US Venezuela Crisis

US special operations forces conducted a targeted extraction from Miraflores Palace, Caracas. Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were taken into US custody

Don't miss ClearIAS updates: Add ClearIAS as a preferred source on Google Add →

• Casualties:
  • Over 80 reported deaths, including Venezuelan security personnel and civilians
  • 32 Cuban military personnel reportedly killed, highlighting Havana’s security role in Venezuela
• US justification:
  • Action framed under narco-terrorism charges
  • US Department of Justice had unsealed indictments alleging state-sponsored drug trafficking

Why Did the US Intervene?

1. Revival of the Monroe Doctrine

The Trump administration explicitly reasserted US primacy in the Western Hemisphere, arguing that extra-regional powers must not dominate Latin America.

• The 1823 Monroe Doctrine viewed the Americas as a US sphere of influence
• The 2025 National Security Doctrine prioritised Latin America and the Caribbean

2. Countering China and Russia

• China:
  • Venezuela is heavily integrated into China’s energy strategy
  • China purchases nearly 80% of Venezuela’s oil exports
  • Major Chinese investments through the Belt and Road Initiative
• Russia:
  • Strategic and military cooperation with Caracas
• US concern:
  • Expansion of Chinese and Russian influence close to US borders

3. Strategic Control over Oil Resources

• Venezuela holds ~17% of global proven oil reserves
• US companies were expelled after nationalisation (1976)
• Trump openly demanded the return of “stolen American oil and assets”
• Control over Venezuelan oil could:
  • Reduce US dependence on West Asian energy
  • Force China to seek alternative suppliers

4. Narco-Terrorism Narrative

• US alleges Venezuelan state institutions facilitated cocaine trafficking
• Maduro accused of using drug profits to:
  • Sustain regime
  • Undermine US and regional security
• This framing was used to justify extra-territorial action

What is the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine is a foreign policy principle articulated by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, which declared that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonisation or interference. In return, the United States pledged not to interfere in European affairs.

Historical Context

• Announced at a time when many Latin American countries had recently gained independence from Spain and Portugal.
• The U.S. feared a return of European colonial powers (especially Spain and the Holy Alliance) to the Americas.
• Britain informally supported the doctrine to protect its trade interests, though enforcement capacity initially came from British naval power rather than the U.S.

Core Principles

1. Non-Colonisation: No new European colonies in the Americas.
2. Non-Intervention: European powers should not interfere in the affairs of independent American states.
3. Separate Spheres of Influence: The Americas and Europe were viewed as distinct political spheres.
4. S. Neutrality in Europe: The U.S. would not interfere in European wars or internal matters.

Evolution of the Doctrine

• 19th Century: Primarily a defensive statement with limited enforcement capability.
• Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Expanded the doctrine, asserting the U.S. right to intervene in Latin American countries to maintain order and prevent European involvement.
• Cold War Era: Used to justify U.S. interventions to prevent the spread of communism in the Western Hemisphere (e.g., Cuba, Nicaragua).
• 21st Century Revival: Re-emerged as a strategic tool to counter Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America.

Legal and International Law Concerns

UN Charter Concerns

• Article 2(4): Prohibits the use of force against sovereignty and territorial integrity
• Article 51 (Self-defence):
  • US argues that narco-terrorism poses a transnational security threat
  • This interpretation remains legally contested

Recognition Doctrine

• Since the US stopped recognising Maduro in 2019, it argues:
  • He lacks head-of-state immunity
• However, international law generally recognises effective control, not recognition alone

Domestic US Law

• Debate over:
  • War Powers Resolution
  • Executive authority vs Congressional oversight

Regional and Global Reactions

• Criticism from several countries for violating sovereignty
• Fears of:
  • Regime-change precedents
  • Militarisation of counter-drug enforcement
• Renewed instability in Latin America

India’s Position: Strategic Restraint

India responded with measured diplomatic caution:

• Expressed deep concern
• Emphasised:
  • Safety and well-being of Venezuelan people
  • Peaceful resolution through dialogue and diplomacy
• Reiterated commitment to:
  • UN Charter principles
  • Sovereignty and non-intervention

Why India’s Position Matters

• Consistency with India’s traditional foreign policy
• Avoids entanglement in great-power rivalry
• Protects India’s strategic autonomy and diaspora interests

Broader Implications of the US Venezuela Crisis

For Global Order

• Weakening of norms against unilateral intervention
• Expansion of security justifications beyond traditional warfare

For Latin America

• Potential destabilisation
• Renewed fears of external intervention

For International Law

• Blurring lines between:
  • Law enforcement
  • Counter-terrorism
  • Military intervention

Conclusion

The US intervention in Venezuela marks a watershed moment in hemispheric geopolitics. While framed as counter-narco-terrorism, it raises serious concerns about sovereignty, legality, and the precedent-setting nature of military action.

For countries like India, the episode reinforces the importance of a rule-based international order, restraint, and peaceful conflict resolution in an increasingly volatile global environment.

Previous Year Questions

Q. Consider the following statements : (2024)

Statement I: Recently, Venezuela has achieved a rapid recovery from its economic crisis and succeeded in preventing its people from fleeing/emigrating to other countries.

Statement II: Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

1. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
2. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
3. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
4. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct