How Venezuela is a moment of reckoning for Global South

On 3 January 2026, the whole world stood shocked at the United States series of airstrikes on Venezuela. As claimed by President Donald Trump, the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife have been captured by the American authorities under a 'narco-terrorism conspiracy', and Venezuela is under temporary American control until there is a “safe, proper and judicious transition”. These claims have been rejected by the Venezuelan government and have not been verified independently, underscoring the unilateral nature of the US action.

The US attack, codenamed 'Operation Absolute Resolve', has brewed a fresh debate on the issues of regional intervention or a tactical move. For the Brics nations this incident marks the fragility of the international legal order, and for the rest of the world it also raises the question of the relevance of the United Nations as a forum for ensuring global peace and stability. Do international laws and commitments hold any truth, or is the world drifting towards the normalisation of legal double standards?

More from Opinion

Is 'legitimate' also lawful?

The UN Charter and numerous statutes of international law categorically prohibit states from attacking another country without provocation or only for self-defence. In an ideal situation, even for self-defence against an armed attack, the authorisation must be routed through the Security Council. But Operation Absolute Resolve satisfied neither of the legal thresholds which have been repeatedly affirmed by the International Court of Justice, even in the case of Nicaragua v United States (1986). The judgement in the case of Nicaragua v United States (1986) was a hallmark in protecting the post-colonial states from the intervention of the powerful states and establishing the most cherished ideal of sovereignty for all.

No matter how compelling the humanitarian rhetoric and the security narratives of President Trump and his supporters may sound, international law rejects it as any valid ground for aggression. The US has already witnessed the unnecessary cost of stretching security narratives during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, in many such cases, it has been amply made clear that the legitimacy claims on any basis do not translate illegality into law. The legality vs legitimacy conundrum was also highlighted even in one of the major landmark cases, involving Nato’s intervention in Kosovo (1999), often defended as a humanitarian precedent; the international lawyers labelled it as “illegal but legitimate”.

For small and emerging powers, especially in Brics, the recent American attack on Venezuela is more than just a moral abstraction; it’s a legal rupture, a violation of an international order that systematically limits the great power hegemony. Unlike treaty-bound alliances consisting of major powers, Brics states have mostly relied on international law, multilateral institutions and diplomatic engagements, rather than on military guarantees, to preserve strategic autonomy.

The erosion of an international order also means that the power disparities become glaring, which could hardly be managed through regional or international institutions and time-tested diplomatic endeavours.

China’s Place in the Shifting Order

Talking of the world order and powers, where does China figure in the recent chain of events? China’s role is consequential as a strategic observer. China has always shown itself as the defender of the UN Charter’s core principles: sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-intervention, and as an avid propagator of sovereignty-centred legal order. And this position of Beijing is not just idealist, but it's a practical understanding of how Western intervention and a West-dominated international order threaten China’s own rise.

With every US action in Iraq, Libya and now in Venezuela, China’s claim to “rules-based order” is strengthened and its voice in Brics and the Global South amplified. The weakened western credibility on international law apparently gives traction to China’s vision of world order that is recognised by less enforcement, fewer interventions and respect for sovereignty.

Based on its foreign policy benevolence and consistency in nations across the world, China gets a chance to reinforce the UN as a forum of enforcement rather than just an elite power club, giving procedural authority precedence over unilateral enforcement.

The Brics Response to Western Double Standards

Also, it is a chance for other Brics partners like India, Brazil, and South Africa to criticise the Western double standards, particularly the Security Council’s veto politics. The weakened UN exposes the strategic autonomy of these countries as well and dampens their global ambitions. If the UN cannot restrain its more powerful members like the US from pushing towards blatant hegemony by habitually violating its foundational rule, then what function does it serve? It must strive to preserve a shared legal framework that gives smaller states a platform to contest for power.

China seems to have adjusted seamlessly but cautiously to the world, which conveniently picks the international laws, and thus does not openly challenge the UN system, which others are bent on hollowing out. The situation gives China a chance to operate in legal ambiguity, but without any confusion.

For Brics nations also, this is the chance for addressing the issues of global governance via the UN. In the situation where unilateral use of force is normalised by countries like the US, Brics nations have a lot to ponder on the law-light international environment. Global political and economic asymmetries give China and others a chance to exercise a decisive weight, obviously not translating into repression. International law must be protected for the sake of protecting order and not the regimes.

Moment of Reckoning

Venezuela is a stark reminder of a reality where international law and institutions are treated as convenient options and the UN hardly holds any relevance as the guardian of world order. The American attacks on Venezuela only seem to reinstate the realistic understanding that the powerful are seeking to reshape the world order on their own terms. For Brics nations this is a warning of the coming world where sovereignty will only be rhetoric and multipolarity means hierarchy. The world is characterised by fewer protections for those without decisive power. In such a situation, the UN is the possible answer: committing to the Charter rather than circumventing it.

(Ila Joshi is Assistant Professor, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)