The capture of Maduro

Jan 06, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the United States marks a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in hemispheric affairs—one that should unsettle every Caribbean nation, regardless of its political leanings or views on the Maduro administration.

This was not diplomacy, nor multilateral action grounded in law. It was a unilateral military seizure of a sitting head of state on foreign soil, carried out by the world’s most powerful military, with consequences that will reverberate far beyond Venezuela.

President Irfaan Ali’s response that Guyana “supports efforts that uphold democratic norms” and welcomes U.S. leadership raises troubling questions about how small states interpret sovereignty when power intervenes. Stability and democracy are worthy goals, but they cannot be built on the wreckage of international law. The idea that democracy can be delivered at gunpoint, or that regime change by foreign capture can never be legitimate, is a fiction history has repeatedly exposed.

Whatever one’s assessment of Maduro’s governance record, the principle at stake is larger than one man. If the United States can seize Venezuela’s president today, under the banner of democracy and security, what protects any other leader or state from similar treatment tomorrow? International law does not bend according to the moral judgments or strategic interests of powerful nations. Once that line is crossed, all states become vulnerable.

CARICOM’s response, cautious but concerned, reflects an understanding of this reality. The regional body has acknowledged that the U.S. military action carries “grave” implications for neighbouring states. Trinidad and Tobago’s swift and public distancing from the operation was especially telling. It was not merely diplomatic housekeeping; it was an assertion of sovereignty and a signal that Caribbean territory must not be assumed as staging ground, accomplice, or silent partner in acts of military intervention.
The Caribbean has lived this history before. From Grenada to Panama to Iraq and Libya beyond the region, interventions justified in the name of democracy have left behind weakened institutions, fractured societies, and long-term instability. The capture of Maduro risks opening a similar chapter, one in which Venezuela’s future is shaped not by Venezuelans, but by foreign interests, particularly those tied to oil, security, and geopolitical leverage.

The response from the Organisation of American States (OAS), led by Secretary-General Albert Ramdin, stands in sharp contrast to the triumphalist tone coming out of Washington. Ramdin’s call for full respect for international law, civilian protection, and peaceful settlement of disputes reflects the only defensible path forward. Democracy imposed through force is not democracy at all; it is domination masquerading as virtue. Of particular concern is the precedent this action sets for “Zone of Peace” rhetoric in the Americas. Guyana has long championed the Caribbean as a region committed to peaceful resolution of disputes. That commitment is hollowed out when military seizures are applauded rather than questioned. True peace requires restraint, dialogue, and respect for sovereignty, not selective enforcement of norms by those with overwhelming power.

The situation is made more perilous by Guyana’s geographic and political proximity to Venezuela. Any instability next door carries direct consequences for Guyana’s security, economy, and territorial integrity. Endorsing or appearing to endorse extra-legal actions today may weaken Guyana’s moral standing tomorrow, particularly when it seeks international support for its own sovereignty claims.
The OAS is correct to emphasise that Venezuela’s constitutional order and institutions, however imperfect—must form the basis for any transition. Sustainable democracy emerges from internal legitimacy, not external capture. Inclusive dialogue, not shock-and-awe tactics, is what prevents civil conflict and regional spillover.

Silence, or worse, applause from smaller states only emboldens a world order where power replaces principle. Guyana and the wider Caribbean must be careful not to confuse alignment with acquiescence. Supporting democracy does not require endorsing lawlessness. The capture of Nicolás Maduro is not a victory for democracy. It is a warning, one that reminds the region that sovereignty is fragile, international law is only as strong as the will to defend it, and today’s precedent may become tomorrow’s peril. If the Caribbean truly believes in peace, then it must find the courage to say so, even when the violator is powerful, friendly, and confident.

---

• capture, Editorial, of Maduro, Venezuela

---