Editor,
The editorial “Aggressor again” (ST January 5, 2026) made interesting reading. Over and above what the editorial states, oil is a major factor in U.S.–Venezuela tensions, but it is not the only one. While Venezuela’s vast reserves make it strategically important, US actions also reflect broader goals such as regime change, geopolitical rivalry, and energy security. Venezuela holds about 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, more than any other country. Controlling or influencing Venezuelan oil flows could reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern energy. For decades, Venezuela’s oil wealth has defined its relationship with the US—sometimes cooperative, often conflictual.
Other drivers of aggression are US sanctions and pressure aimed to weaken Nicolás Maduro’s government, which Washington views as authoritarian. Venezuela’s alliances with Russia, China, and Iran complicate US influence in the region. After years of sanctions failing to topple Maduro, Washington has explored harsher measures like maritime chokeholds. Officially, US policy frames its actions as promoting democracy and human rights, though critics argue this masks economic interests. Oil greed plays a role, but US aggression toward Venezuela is also about power, influence, and regime change. Oil is the leverage point, but the bigger picture involves geopolitics and control over strategic resources.
The UN is proving ineffective against US aggression in Venezuela because its structure limits enforcement power: the Security Council is dominated by veto‑holding states (including the US), and while UN experts and the Secretary‑General can condemn actions, they cannot compel compliance or impose binding measures without Council consensus. The structural limitation of the UN is that the US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Any resolution condemning or sanctioning US actions can be blocked by its veto. Effective UN action requires agreement among major powers, which is rare when one of them is directly involved. The UN can issue statements, condemnations, and recommendations, but it lacks independent military or coercive capacity.
The UN declared the US maritime blockade illegal under international law, calling it “armed aggression” and a violation of the UN Charter. Secretary‑General António Guterres expressed being “deeply alarmed” at US military operations, including the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, warning it sets a “dangerous precedent” while the role of the General Assembly is that it can debate and pass resolutions which are non-binding and often symbolic. The UN effectiveness is limited because the US has global influence, military reach, and economic leverage, making enforcement against it politically and practically difficult. Some states quietly support US actions or avoid confrontation, thereby weakening collective resistance. Repeated inability to restrain powerful states erodes trust in the UN’s capacity to uphold international law. Though the UN is not silent, it has condemned US aggression in Venezuela—but its institutional design prevents it from enforcing accountability against powerful member states. This exposes the tension between international law and realpolitik: the UN can articulate norms, but cannot override the geopolitical dominance of its most influential members.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Donald Trump, architect of war, not peace
Editor,
The recent military aggression by the United States against Venezuela is uncalled for. It has set a dangerous precedent. The US used narcoterrorism and governance disputes as a pretext. Its brutal strikes with over 150 aircraft and the capture of Venezuela’s leader and his wife have exposed something rotten. Yes, this completely goes against the principles that uphold the international order.
The United Nations Charter is very clear. No nation, however powerful, has the right to violate the sovereignty of another except in genuine self-defence or with explicit authorization from the Security Council. In fact, this is not a matter of interpretation but of law born from the countless bloodshed of past wars and invasions. When a superpower bypasses these rules, it does more than harm a single country, undermining the pillars of global peace.
Needless to say, behind the rhetoric of narco-terrorism lies a shadow that many cannot ignore: oil and resources. Venezuela, rich in petroleum, has long been eyed by foreign powers. The present US aggression looks less like a righteous mission and more like a rapacious grasp for wealth! History is shockingly littered with instances of empires disguising greed in the garments of justice. Yet the truth, however veiled, eventually came forth and reeked to high heavens.
The world must remember — peace is not built by the strong imposing their will for ulterior motives. It is built by all nations, big or small, respecting each other’s right to exist. If this principle is lost, the global order will descend into disorder. Venezuela’s plight is a warning, and the world ignores it at its peril.
Today, it is Venezuela under the United States. Tomorrow, it could be Taiwan, the Philippines, or Vietnam under China. After that, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, or Kyrgyzstan may fall under the boots of Russia. The world order will be completely in shambles due to the display of brute strength and ego. Will it not be akin to the savagery of primitive times! What a classic case of irony — Donald Trump, once fervently seeking the Nobel Peace Prize, could become the architect of chaos and turmoil.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali
Shillong
