On January 3, 2026, the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro was captured by US forces, and shipped to New York, where he is currently being held. The intervention had several justifications from the Trump administration, as well as several criticisms from those opposed to it. I’d say many arguments on both sides are fair. Many opposing the intervention are understandably upset that Trump did it behind Congress’s back, as well as the fact that a transition to a true democracy is not yet guaranteed for Venezuela. At the same time, many in support of the intervention point to the jubilant crowds of Venezuelans, cheering on the toppling of Maduro. Was the intervention not worth potentially bringing millions relief from the crushing jackboot of authoritarianism? While a lot of these arguments have a lot of good evidence and reasoning to back them up, there is one argument frequently made that absolutely infuriates me for how short-sighted it is. The idea that the intervention was bad because this action broke “international law,” and sets a precedent that could give our adversaries the pretext to break it as well.
Now, outwardly, this argument initially seems somewhat sound. After all, the actions taken by the United States breached Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of military force against another sovereign nation in this way. Heads of state are also generally considered immune, making Maduro’s capture even more “illegal.” It is true that according to international law, the United States has committed illegal actions against the government of Venezuela. I ask you this though, dear reader: why should we care about that?
Let’s not act like China, Russia, or Iran care for international law or the dignity of human life. China is committing an ethnic cleansing against its Muslim Uyghur population, Russia is butchering civilians in Ukraine, and Iran just killed tens of thousands to crush protests against their government. Do we seriously think these leaders care about “international law,” when they’ve all already broken it multiple times over? Are we legitimately supposed to believe this was the pretext they needed to kill more people? Impossible.
Simply put, if our enemies are fully willing to break international law to hurt us, our allies, or anyone who is a friend to Western democracy, then we must be willing to do the same to fight back. This doesn’t mean we should kill innocents, but we should be okay with taking action against oppressive regimes. We should not shackle ourselves to a dying concept of “international law” if it actively impedes us and our enemies ignore it anyway. While it would be ideal for every country to follow international law, that is a world that sadly doesn’t exist today. Sometimes, for the greater good, rules must be cast aside.
Views presented in this article are those of the writer, they do not necessarily represent the views of The Viking Vibe.
