Commentary (Xinhua): The strike against Venezuela shows who truly undermines international law

In this photo taken on December 23, 2025, an oil tanker is anchored in Lake Maracaibo in Zulia State, Venezuela. (Xinhua)

The US military incursion into Venezuela, and the action taken against its president, Nicolas Maduro, as announced by the US administration, once again reveal Washington's reliance on unilateral force to impose outcomes beyond its borders.

This aggression also empties decades of American rhetoric, which presents the United States as the guardian of the rules of the international order, of its content. By bypassing the UN Security Council, Washington has once again acted in direct contradiction to the principles of international law.

Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, a foundational principle of international law, explicitly prohibits the use or threat of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of any state. Consequently, the action taken against the leader of a sovereign state has unequivocally shown the world who the true violator of international law is.

History offers ample precedents. From Iraq and Libya to Panama and Grenada, the United States has repeatedly used or threatened to use force under dubious pretexts, often leaving behind long-term instability. Venezuela, long subjected to sanctions and political pressure, now joins that list, with diplomacy once again sidelined in favor of military coercion.

In this photo taken on August 4, 2022, the White House and a sign reading "STOP", in Washington D.C., United States. (Xinhua)

This aggression is all the more reprehensible because it occurred in Latin America. The region has a long history of US interventions, and the logic behind them has never truly disappeared.

As CNN noted in its analysis, "At the heart of this move lies Washington's broader ambitions to exert greater control over its immediate neighborhood, in what they called an updated version of the Monroe Doctrine."

This doctrine may no longer be explicitly declared, but its essence remains: the Western Hemisphere is still treated as Washington's exclusive sphere of influence.

Through its own repeated actions, Washington has emerged as one of the most dangerous threats to the international order it claims to defend.

For the rest of the world, speaking clearly and firmly in defense of sovereignty and multilateralism is no longer an optional choice. Rather, it has become essential to prevent a return to a world where power, not law, determines the fate of nations.