The rules-based order

International law rests firmly on the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. The forcible seizure of a sitting head of state from within his own country, without consent or a United Nations mandate, has little precedent in modern international relations. Even states that have been sharply critical of Maduro’s authoritarian rule have refrained from endorsing the means used to remove him. The UN Secretary-General's warning that the action sets a ‘dangerous precedent’ reflects widespread concern that normalizing such interventions could further erode already fragile restraints on the use of force

- ANAND KUMAR

The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US. forces in the early hours of 3 January 2026 stands as one of the most dramatic and contentious episodes in recent international politics. While Washington has projected the operation as a decisive strike against narco-trafficking and authoritarianism, much of the international community views it as an unprecedented act of regime change carried out through unilateral military force. The episode raises serious questions about sovereignty, the erosion of international norms, and the difficult choices confronting middle powers such as India in an increasingly polarized world.

From the U.S. perspective, the operation aligns closely with President Donald Trump's longstanding approach to Venezuela. Maduro has faced indictments in U.S. courts since 2020 on charges related to narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and arms smuggling. Trump has consistently portrayed Venezuela as a criminal state run by a cartel rather than a legitimate government.

The January operation, involving extensive military strikes and a special forces raid in Caracas, culminated in the capture of Maduro and his wife and their transfer to New York for prosecution. Trump defended the action as swift, necessary, and justified, arguing that Venezuela posed a direct security threat within America’s strategic “home region.”