​Blatant foul: On Venezuela and U.S. aggression

In line with a series of hostile moves, the U.S. seized a Venezuelan oil tanker, Skipper, on December 10. Venezuela called it the latest example of Washington’s “piracy, kidnapping, theft of private property, extrajudicial executions in international waters”. The tanker was part of Venezuela’s ongoing efforts to support Cuba through subsidised oil shipments, with proceeds from resale to China providing Havana crucial revenue. For decades, Venezuela has sent oil to Cuba at highly subsidised prices, with Cuba sending doctors and security professionals to Venezuela. The seizure represents a troubling escalation in U.S. policy toward Venezuela under President Nicolás Maduro. It is also clear that the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a major hawk on U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba, has sought to disrupt one of the island nation’s economic lifelines. The overt moves to engineer regime change in Venezuela and other brazen acts mark a new low in U.S. foreign policy, recalling the interventionist era of its Monroe Doctrine in Latin America.

Before the seizure of Skipper, the U.S. had also conducted strikes in Caribbean waters on boats that Washington alleged were used by drug traffickers. These attacks appear to constitute acts of war carried out without clear legislative authorisation. The Trump administration insists that the operations are part of its “war on drugs”, but has not presented credible evidence to link Mr. Maduro to cartels or to drug trafficking networks. To be clear, Mr. Maduro is credibly accused of manipulating the results in the 2024 presidential elections and his government also bears substantial responsibility for Venezuela’s crippling economic collapse. But, acknowledging its failures does nothing to justify the Trump administration’s hostile approach. Be it the disproportionate economic sanctions that hurt Venezuela’s ability to sell its crude oil, covert actions to take down the Maduro presidency, the ill-conceived recognition of an opposition politician, Juan Guaidó, as President, or the extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and the seizure of the oil tanker, these actions are tantamount to flouting the rules of the international order that the U.S. purports to uphold. The parallel with U.S. policy towards Cuba since the Cuban Revolution in the 1950s is instructive. The U.S. has maintained an embargo on trade to force regime change in the island nation. The world must condemn these moves, even while maintaining the critique of the Venezuelan regime. A principled defence of international law that applies equally to all actors, including the rich and the powerful, is an imperative so that the world does not descend further into anarchy.

Overall Analysis

The editorial strongly criticises the United States’ recent actions against Venezuela, framing them as unlawful, aggressive, and destabilising for the international order. It opens by describing the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker as part of a pattern of hostile behaviour, immediately establishing a confrontational and accusatory tone. The language used — words such as “piracy,” “kidnapping,” and “extrajudicial executions” — signals moral outrage and positions the U.S. actions as violations of international norms rather than legitimate enforcement measures.

The argument then situates the tanker seizure within a broader geopolitical context, highlighting Venezuela’s oil-for-services arrangement with Cuba and the U.S. attempt to disrupt this economic lifeline. By invoking the Monroe Doctrine, the editorial draws a historical parallel to American interventionism in Latin America, suggesting that current policy echoes an outdated and coercive worldview. This historical framing deepens the critique and lends it ideological weight.

In the second paragraph, the editorial broadens its indictment to include U.S. military strikes in Caribbean waters, questioning their legality and democratic accountability. While the author acknowledges serious flaws in Nicolás Maduro’s regime — including electoral manipulation and economic mismanagement — this concession is carefully used to strengthen credibility, not dilute criticism. The editorial argues that internal failures of the Venezuelan government do not legitimise foreign aggression, sanctions, or regime-change tactics.

The closing section elevates the argument to a principled defence of international law. By comparing Venezuela to Cuba’s decades-long experience under U.S. embargo, the editorial warns against normalising unilateral coercion by powerful states. The final appeal is universalist rather than partisan: global order depends on rules applying equally to all nations. The language here is solemn and cautionary, ending on a note of urgency about preventing global anarchy.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Extrajudicial – carried out without legal process or court authority.
2. Brazen – bold and without shame.
3. Disproportionate – excessively large or unfair in relation to the issue.
4. Flouting – openly disregarding rules or laws.
5. Anarchy – a state of disorder due to absence or breakdown of authority.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that U.S. actions against Venezuela represent a dangerous erosion of international law and set a troubling precedent for global conduct. While acknowledging the Venezuelan regime’s failures, it insists that powerful nations must be held to the same legal standards as weaker ones.

Tone: Strongly critical, morally assertive, and internationalist.