When the United States of America – the self-proclaimed defender of the post-World War II rules-based international order – launched a daring nighttime military operation in Venezuela and captured a sitting head of state, it wasn’t just a geopolitical shock. It was a watershed moment in the history of global governance. What has transpired in Caracas and Washington is not merely an isolated incident but a dangerous precedent that threatens the very principles of sovereignty, international law, and collective security that Ghana and many African states have long advocated.
In early January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been seized by American forces and transported to New York to face criminal charges. Then, with jaw-dropping candour, Trump declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela and oversee a political transition – even suggesting that U.S. oil companies would rebuild and control the country’s energy infrastructure.
This is not speculation. This is not strategic ambiguity. This is the leader of the world’s most powerful military declaring that his nation will govern another sovereign state. It recalls grim chapters of the 20th century when colonial powers administered vast swaths of Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. But those days were supposed to be behind us.
And yet, here we are.
A Violation of Sovereignty and International Law
The United Nations Charter is clear: no state may use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another without Security Council authorization or an act of self-defence. There is no evidence that Venezuela posed an imminent threat to the United States, nor was there a Security Council mandate authorizing the use of force. According to international law scholars, this operation appears to be a direct violation of those basic principles.
For Ghana, for Africa, for all nations that fought for independence from colonial domination in the 20th century, sovereignty is not a rhetorical slogan. It is a hard-won right. The idea that a powerful state can violate another’s borders and remove its leader with impunity strikes at the heart of what the United Nations was created to protect.
Ghana Speaks: A Justified Condemnation
Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was swift and unequivocal in condemning the U.S. action – a position grounded not in support for President Maduro, whose record is deeply contested, but in defence of the principle of sovereignty. This is consistent with Ghana’s foreign policy traditions, which champion non-interference and multilateralism.
Across the world, reactions to the U.S. operation have been mixed. Some governments celebrated Maduro’s removal. Others, including Spain and Brazil, condemned what they saw as a breach of international law. The Secretary-General of the United Nations described the situation as a “dangerous precedent.”
Yet in the face of this chorus of concern, the United States appears unfazed – an unrestrained giant amid a world of fragile hosts.
From Venezuela to Nigeria: A Pattern of Unchecked U.S. Action
This brazen disregard for international norms did not begin in Caracas. In late 2025, President Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes in Nigeria targeting Islamic State affiliates after amplifying claims of severe Christian persecution. The Nigerian government itself pushed back against the narrative, clarifying that violence in the affected regions targeted a diversity of civilians and that Nigeria did not request unilateral U.S. intervention.
For many Africans, this episode was a harbinger. It revealed a dangerous pattern in which U.S. leaders invoke human rights concerns as justification for military action abroad, while sidestepping cooperative, multilateral mechanisms that should govern such decisions.
The Fraying of International Order
There was a time when the United States championed institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and regional organisations precisely because they checked the arbitrary use of power. Today, those institutions seem weak when confronting an assertive U.S. executive claiming the right to impose its will on another nation’s political destiny.
If the capture of President Maduro goes unchallenged, what’s to stop any powerful state – within or beyond the West – from following suit? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may have galvanized global opposition to territorial conquest, but now the same international community finds itself eerily quiet when the world’s dominant power flouts the norms it once touted.
Why Africa Should Be Worried
African states, including Ghana, have worked tirelessly to strengthen regional institutions like the African Union, promoting conflict resolution and respect for sovereignty. But neither the AU nor the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) possesses the military or diplomatic heft to confront a unilateral action by the United States.
Make no mistake: Africa could be next.
Governments that have not aligned with U.S. policy; whether in trade, security, or diplomacy; could find themselves vulnerable to similar arguments of “threat”, “instability”, or “moral imperative” for intervention. In a world where might increasingly trumps right, no nation, big or small, is immune.
Conclusion: The World Must Act
The question is no longer hypothetical: Who checks Trump? Who checks the United States? It is a question every government – from Accra to Addis Ababa, from Brasília to Beijing – must now confront.
If the rules-based international order is to survive, its enforcement cannot rest solely on the goodwill of the most powerful state. It must be backed by credible multilateral action, robust regional organisations, and a reinvigorated United Nations that is willing to uphold the Charter it was founded upon.
For Africa, this moment must be a clarion call — not just to defend sovereignty abroad, but to strengthen institutions at home and across the continent so that no global power ever again tramples on the rights of nations, large or small, with impunity.
