European leaders split as Venezuela intervention exposes fractures in the emerging global order

“The Daily Baku” reports that across Europe, officials attempted to frame events around the idea of democratic transition, noting that Maduro had not been recognised as Venezuela’s legitimate president since the June 2024 elections, which were widely dismissed as fraudulent. Emphasising this point allowed leaders to distance themselves from Maduro without explicitly endorsing Washington’s methods.

However, Trump’s public dismissal of María Corina Machado, the Nobel peace prize-winning opposition figure long championed by European capitals, created discomfort. While Trump claimed she lacked credibility and support at home, European leaders have consistently portrayed her as the rightful representative of a democratic alternative deserving of power.

International legal experts argue that Washington’s refusal to acknowledge Maduro’s legitimacy provides a legal pathway for the US to claim he does not benefit from sovereign immunity in American courts – mirroring the precedent set when Manuel Noriega was tried in the US following his capture in 1989.

US officials have defended the operation by invoking self-defence, asserting that Venezuela’s government was deeply entangled in drug trafficking networks. Yet Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale, rejected this rationale, stating that the UN charter offers no credible legal basis for such use of force.

“If drug trafficking becomes a valid justification for attacking another state,” Hathaway warned, “then self-defence ceases to be a narrow exception and instead becomes the norm.” She argued that using narcotics flows to legitimise invasion and regime change effectively erases all meaningful constraints on military force, calling the US action an unprecedented violation of international law.

Signs of Europe’s unease were evident. Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, whose country currently holds a non-permanent seat on the UN security council, sought to shut down debate over the legality of Trump’s approach. Writing online, he condemned Maduro’s “brutal and repressive dictatorship” and said its collapse offered hope for Venezuelans, adding pointedly that “this is not the moment” to scrutinise the legality of recent actions.

By contrast, Trump’s closest ideological allies in Europe, including Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, openly endorsed the US operation, characterising it as a legitimate act of defence.

Other European leaders appeared to temper their criticism, possibly wary of antagonising Trump at a time when US backing for Ukraine remains critical. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reiterated that the bloc considers Maduro illegitimate and supports a peaceful transition, while stressing that international law and the UN charter must be respected “in all circumstances” and calling for restraint.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen similarly focused on the future rather than the means, expressing solidarity with the Venezuelan people and backing a democratic transition that complies with international law and UN principles.

Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, also avoided firm conclusions, describing the legal evaluation of the US intervention as “complex” and requiring careful analysis.

France adopted a cautious tone as well. Without directly referencing the US military action, Emmanuel Macron said Venezuelans could only welcome the end of the Maduro dictatorship and called for a peaceful democratic transition led by opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia. He also spoke with Machado in a symbolic gesture of support.

The most explicit condemnation came from France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, who stated that Maduro’s capture violated the fundamental international law principle prohibiting the use of force.

“No durable political solution can be imposed from outside,” Barrot said, emphasising that only sovereign peoples can determine their future. He warned that repeated breaches of this principle by countries entrusted with safeguarding global security as permanent members of the UN security council would have serious consequences for international stability.

UK prime minister Keir Starmer expressed no sympathy for Maduro’s removal and reaffirmed the importance of international law, though he stopped short of explaining how those principles applied to the US intervention.

For defenders of the rules-based international order, Venezuela may represent yet another burial in a system already in decline. Trump’s actions appear to entrench a new reality in which raw self-interest, exercised by a handful of dominant powers, overrides legal norms.

In this emerging order, decisions are shaped by power rather than principle, with Washington and Beijing setting the rules according to their own interests.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio reinforced this impression on Saturday by openly warning that Cuba could be next. “Cuba is a disaster run by incompetent, senile men,” he said. “If I were them, I’d be concerned.”

Advocates of multilateral institutions and international justice may also be forced to confront their own shortcomings. Nizar El Fakih, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, argued that multilateralism failed to deliver any effective negotiation capable of producing a peaceful, orderly transition, despite years of civic mobilisation by Venezuelans at immense personal cost.

He also criticised the international criminal court, noting that although it has been investigating Venezuela since 2021, it has yet to issue a single indictment – despite extensive documentation of crimes against humanity by UN investigators, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and hundreds of victims.