U.S. intervention in Venezuela has triggered swift criticism framed as a violation of international law. Civic groups, some governments and parts of the international community argue that forcibly removing a sitting president of a sovereign state sets a dangerous precedent that risks eroding the global order. These concerns deserve serious consideration, because legal norms exist precisely to restrain the use of force.
But if the debate ends there, it avoids a more difficult question: What was the alternative?
Venezuela is not a country condemned by geography or resources. It is among the world’s most resource-rich states. It holds one of the largest proven oil reserves globally and significant natural-gas reserves within South America. Add strategic minerals such as gold, iron ore, bauxite and coltan, along with vast hydropower and agricultural potential, and the foundations for a stable society were firmly in place — had institutions been allowed to function normally.
Instead, Venezuela has descended into a prolonged economic, social and humanitarian collapse. International institutions have described the situation as a breakdown of state functions comparable to wartime conditions. Years of governance from Hugo Chávez to Nicolás Maduro hollowed out markets and institutions through populist policy choices and aggressive nationalization. Oil revenues were channeled into political survival and short-term loyalty, while investment and maintenance at the state oil company steadily eroded.
The damage is visible in hard data. Oil production, once close to 3 million barrels a day, fell to a fraction of that level by the late 2010s. Aging refineries and pipelines suffered repeated failures and spills, compounding environmental harm. An industry meant to anchor the economy instead became a source of fragility.
The human cost has been staggering. More than 7 million Venezuelans — roughly one-third of the population — have fled the country. Many describe Venezuela not in ideological terms but simply as “a country you can’t return to.” Doctors, teachers and technicians crossing borders only to survive on informal work illustrate how institutional collapse translates into personal loss.
The crisis has not remained contained within national borders. As state authority weakened, Venezuela became a transit hub for drug trafficking and illicit economies, straining public safety across Latin America. Yet for years, the international response largely consisted of cautious language about sovereignty and calls for dialogue. It is difficult to argue that such restraint prevented hunger or slowed the exodus.
Washington had signaled pressure and the possibility of action for months. During that period, the Maduro government deepened ties with China and Russia rather than pursuing structural reform or political compromise. Critics argue that the intervention also reflects geopolitical rivalry and energy interests. That argument carries weight, underscoring why this episode cannot be reduced to a simple morality play.
The debate ultimately returns to practical questions: Who will revive Venezuela’s economy, under what conditions, and with what capital? With trust in law and institutions shattered, large-scale reconstruction is unlikely to emerge from humanitarian appeals alone.
The focus now should move from judging the past to managing what comes next. Condemnation will not rebuild Venezuela. What is required is coordinated international judgment — restoring public security, restarting economic activity and repairing damaged rights in parallel. Support for free and fair elections must follow so that a government with democratic legitimacy can emerge.
The transition will be fraught with risk. Societies shaped by prolonged authoritarian rule rarely move smoothly toward stability. Security vacuums, elite fragmentation and public disillusionment are real dangers. A poorly managed transition could deepen suffering rather than relieve it. The priority, therefore, is not speed but management — a phased, multilateral approach that links institutional recovery, social stability and economic reconstruction step by step.
Ultimately, this crisis is not only about whether intervention was justified. It is also about the cost of prolonged inaction. Intervention is not always right. But in Venezuela’s case, inaction repeatedly failed — and its burden fell first and most heavily on the most vulnerable.
▲Latin America specialist (former diplomat; honorary professor at Peru’s National University of Trujillo) ▲Global ambassador, Korea National Railway ▲Director, Latin America Railway Economy Research Institute
* This article, published by Aju Business Daily, was translated by AI and edited by AJP.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.
