Imani Tafari-Ama | Return of 21st century piracy?

For those who believed that the age of imperial adventurism and piracy was confined to the history books — age-old memories of the Barbary Coast or the scramble for Africa — the events unfolding in Venezuela this January stand as a stark and unwelcome reminder that great-power aggression has never truly disappeared.

What we are witnessing is more than a geopolitical crisis. It is a fundamental challenge to international law, sovereign equality, and the norms that have governed state relations since the mid-20th century.

Earlier this month, the United States executed a bold military operation inside Venezuela, seizing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The president was removed from Venezuelan territory and taken to New York to face US federal charges of drug trafficking and “narco-terrorism”.

This was not an extradition. Nor was it a lawful diplomatic request. It was the forcible capture of a sovereign head of state on the soil of his own country by the military forces of another. The abduction of a sitting president without UN Security Council authorisation or clear self-defence justification is a blatant violation of the UN Charter. It calls into question the relevance of the UN as an institution to defend human rights. It also triggers memories of Emperor Haile Selassie I’s indictment of the League of Nations for failing to defend Ethiopia against Italian aggression.

For citizens across the Global South, especially in the Caribbean and Latin America, the ramifications are profound. The US has now set a precedent in which executive fiat, paired with military force, is sufficient to topple, decapitate, and try an elected leader without due process. This must alarm us all. Venezuelan authorities, including Interim President Delcy Rodríguez, have condemned the operation as an illegal act of aggression and “kidnapping”.

The US has also introduced a model of piracy into the imperial mix. The seizure of ships carrying Venezuelan oil is being celebrated as part of the “victory”. Meanwhile, Cuba, Russia, and China, all subjects of US sanctions have described the seizure of vessels and the US naval blockade in the Caribbean and Atlantic as “acts of piracy and maritime terrorism”.

The US has justified its actions with the claim of combating narco-terrorism. Yet, even within US statements, there are conflicting narratives: at times framed as law enforcement and, at others, as security and regime change. Yet there was no UN authorisation for armed intervention and no prior armed attack from Venezuela that could reasonably justify such force. Claiming law enforcement authority to justify a military invasion is the sort of legal code that pirates once used to excuse seizures on the high seas.

History shows that the United States has long relied on a familiar set of tactics in pursuit of its foreign policy goals. Years of US sanctions against Venezuela aimed to strangle its finances and international trade. By labelling Maduro’s government as illegitimate and framing him as a drug lord, despite no formal extradition request or trial in Venezuela, the public was encouraged to despise the president.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations, which were openly discussed, increased political pressure and intensified internal divisions. Placing a $50 million bounty on the president’s head also invoked the glory days of the wild, wild west and the subsequent decimation of the indigenous peoples of North America. But that’s a whole ‘nother story. Months of “gunboat diplomacy” culminated in the decisive removal of the head of state by force. These steps form a familiar regime-change playbook. Munroe Doctrine now dubbed “Donroe Doctrine”. OMG.

Since capturing Maduro, the US has made it clear that Venezuelan oil will be controlled and sold on the open market. This raises urgent questions: Who benefits from these sales? Will the revenues support the Venezuelan people or primarily strengthen US oil interests? What does it mean when a powerful state can literally control the energy wealth of a weaker one through force?

While many in developing countries still nourish dreams of migrating to the US for a better life, current events lay bare another reality. When geopolitics and resources are at stake, even the most vaunted democracies — including the US — are capable of actions that violate sovereignty and international norms.

From Haiti to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, past US military interventions have left societies fractured, economies devastated, and democratic aspirations hollowed out. Venezuela now joins that troubling list.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) cannot afford silence. We must ask: What is our collective stance on the violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty? If smaller states allow their own sovereignty to be dismissed without consequence, what message does that send when the US eyes its next strategic interest? Why has Jamaica’s leadership offered no clear statement on this watershed development?

In a world marked by shifting power balances, regional alliances must be bold, principled, and articulate. We must assert respect for sovereign equality under international law, not selective enforcement. We must oppose rendition and extrajudicial seizures of heads of state. This is what Jamaica did when then Prime Minister, PJ Patterson, sent Sharon Hay Webster to accompany kidnapped President of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide, from the Central African Republic to Jamaica, before he left to exile in South Africa. Remember that one?

The events in Venezuela this January are not just about one president or one resource-rich nation. They are about the legacies of empire, the rules that govern international order, and whether smaller nations will be treated as sovereign equals or as pawns in a larger game of geopolitical chess.

If the US can remove a sitting president with impunity, without credible legal justification and amid international protest, then the era of unchecked military intervention — dressed up in the language of law and order — may be far from over.

This is not just Venezuela’s crisis. It is a test for all of us who cherish sovereignty, self-determination, and the rule of law in a world that desperately needs them.

Imani Tafari-Ama, PhD, is a Pan-African advocate and gender and development specialist. Send feedback to i.tafariama@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com.