By Ericka O’Connell, Roosevelt Island Daily
Hello, neighbors! Today we look deeper at one of the most consequential foreign policy moments in recent history: the United States military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to New York to face charges. This event is making headlines across the world and prompting urgent questions about what it says about U.S. power and how history casts long shadows over our present moment.
What Happened in Venezuela?
In the early hours of January 3, U.S. forces launched a coordinated strike on Venezuela that included air operations and the seizure of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Maduro now stands accused in a U.S. federal court of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, charges his legal team rejects as unlawful.
President Donald Trump framed the operation as a necessary “law enforcement” action, one aimed at dismantling a regime he described as illegitimate and criminal. He went further, announcing that the United States would “run” Venezuela, at least temporarily, until a political transition could occur.
But global reaction has been swift and sharp. At the United Nations, representatives from Brazil, China, Russia, and South Africa denounced the U.S. move as an illegal “crime of aggression” that violates Venezuela’s sovereignty and international law. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the action could destabilize the region further.
Why This Feels Familiar
For many observers around the world, this is not just another headline. It is a moment that echoes some of the most controversial chapters in recent U.S. foreign policy.
Think back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched by the United States and allied forces. That far-reaching intervention was justified by the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction — a claim that was never substantiated. The costs were staggering: hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, millions displaced, and lasting regional instability. Critics have called the Iraq war a defining example of American military overreach with disastrous long-term results.
Earlier still, in 1989 the United States invaded Panama, ousting General Manuel Noriega and justifying its action on claims of protecting American lives and democracy. The invasion drew widespread international censure as a violation of Panamanian sovereignty.
Each of these interventions was grounded in a mix of moral justification, strategic interests, and assertions of global leadership. And each left behind a complex legacy of debate, instability, resentment, and questions about legitimacy.
Intervention and Its Consequences
History teaches us that military interventions, even those with clear strategic goals, often have outcomes that ripple far beyond what planners intend. In Iraq and Afghanistan, long occupations and nation-building efforts failed to produce stable, democratic systems and often deepened sectarian divides. Civilians bore the heaviest costs.
In Latin America, interventions through the 20th century — from supporting repressive regimes to direct military action — have shaped attitudes toward U.S. power for generations. Memories of interventions in Grenada, Nicaragua, Chile, and Panama have lingered in the region’s political consciousness, feeding skepticism about American motives and commitment to self-determination.
Now, with the U.S. military acting unilaterally to abduct and try a sitting president of another nation, many world leaders and legal scholars are asking whether this sets a new, dangerous precedent. If one powerful state can send troops into another sovereign country to capture its leader under the banner of criminal justice, what does that mean for the rules that have governed international relations for the last eight decades?
Why Context Matters
It is important to recognize that Nicolás Maduro’s government was widely criticized for authoritarian practices and a troubled electoral history. But the method of removing him — by external military force — raises profound questions. Does this approach strengthen or weaken global norms around sovereignty? Can a sustainable transition to democracy be imposed from the outside, or does it require internal momentum and legitimacy?
Neighboring countries, from Chile to Mexico to Brazil, have warned that this unilateral action could undermine regional stability and set a precedent that other powers might exploit. The United Nations meeting earlier this weekend captured that tension vividly: a world divided over how to balance justice, security, and respect for borders.
Looking Ahead
We are living in a moment when the world’s long debate over the role of U.S. power is coming to a head. What happened in Venezuela forces us to reckon with history, with international law, and with the unintended consequences of military action.
Friends, our community here in Roosevelt Island may feel far removed from Caracas and Washington, but the broader lessons reach us all: societies shaped by force often face long struggles for peace; global norms matter; and the road to lasting stability rarely runs through bombs and incursions.
As this situation unfolds, the world will watch, and the lessons of history — from Panama to Iraq and beyond — remind us why wisdom and restraint are as vital as courage and conviction.
The Gag Order
We move back into the August 27, 2025 Governance Committee meeting at 680 Main Street where it felt less like a continuation than the quiet third act of a long play. In Part 1 (“A Pause Between Sips”), the conversation had drifted from ethics to ground leases, from principle to property, as if governance were something to be held but never quite grasped.
