Research Professor at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Professor Femi Otubanjo has described the United States’ military intervention in Venezuela as a “state capture” that flagrantly violates international law and sets a dangerous global precedent.
Speaking during an interview on ARISE News on Sunday, Otubanjo said the arrest and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro following US military strikes amounted to an unlawful seizure of a sovereign state and its resources.
“The capture of Venezuela is not just about Maduro; it is a state capture. You capture the state and its resources,” he said.
Otubanjo argued that the intervention breached multiple provisions of the United Nations Charter, stressing that Washington had no legal justification for its actions.
“Article 2.1 talks about sovereign equality, Article 2.4 prohibits aggression against any state, and Article 2.7 forbids intervention in domestic affairs. None of these conditions were met,” he said.
“Article 51 allows self-defence only in cases of aggression, and none of that is applicable here.”
He dismissed US claims of acting in Venezuela’s interest, insisting the intervention was driven primarily by economic and strategic calculations rather than humanitarian concerns .
“What Trump has talked about is oil — crude oil — and installing a government that will play America’s game,” Otubanjo said.
“American companies are being sent to spend billions rehabilitating oil infrastructure. This is about reversing Venezuela’s nationalisation of American assets.”
The professor warned that the move represented a departure from previous US restraint, noting that earlier administrations, despite their interests, were more cautious in observing international law.
“Previous governments obeyed international law and did not go full blast. This is a new and very dangerous precedent,” he said.
Otubanjo also criticised what he described as the personalisation of US foreign policy under President Donald Trump, arguing that institutional checks had been sidelined.
“This is a personalised dictatorship in America. Bureaucratic processes have been shoved aside,” he said.
“You now have a situation where a president dismisses intelligence reports and decides foreign policy based on personal instinct.”
According to him, Trump’s business background had shaped a transactional approach to global affairs.
“Trump operates from a mindset of ownership and control. Venezuela, with the largest oil reserves in the world, is very attractive for his transnational ambitions,” Otubanjo said.
“International law has been set aside, and nobody is going to enforce it.”
He further linked the intervention to broader geopolitical rivalry, particularly US concerns over China, Russia and Iran’s growing influence in Latin America.
“This fits into the Monroe Doctrine — America’s long-standing belief that no rival power should challenge it in the Western Hemisphere,” he said.
“Venezuela’s engagement with Russia, China and Iran made the United States restless.”
Otubanjo explained that Venezuela’s decision to sell oil in currencies other than the US dollar posed a direct challenge to American economic dominance.
“Selling oil in yuan, roubles and euros threatened the petrodollar system that underpins American hegemony,” he said.
“But that is still not a justification for invasion. International law requires negotiation, not violence.”
On the role of the United Nations, Otubanjo said the crisis had once again exposed the organisation’s structural weakness.
“The UN Security Council has become ineffective because veto-wielding powers can ignore it with impunity,” he said.
“The United States, Russia and China were meant to be pillars of peace, but they have become the greatest threat to it.”
He warned that failure to restrain such actions could embolden further conflicts globally.
“If nothing is done about Russia in Ukraine and America in Venezuela, what stops China from taking Taiwan?” he asked.
“A nuclear war is not winnable. Everyone loses.”
Otubanjo cautioned that the intervention could have severe economic consequences, particularly for oil-dependent countries like Nigeria.
“Once American companies rehabilitate Venezuela’s oil facilities and production surges, there will be a glut in the market,” he said.
“That could crash oil prices, weaken OPEC, and hurt countries like Nigeria that depend heavily on oil revenue.”
While acknowledging Maduro’s authoritarian record, Otubanjo maintained that regime change through military force was unacceptable.
“Maduro was not a saint. Millions of Venezuelans fled his rule,” he said.
“But Article 2.7 is clear — you do not intervene in another country’s domestic affairs. Change must come through elections, not invasion.”
He concluded that the Venezuelan case showed how vulnerable smaller states had become in a world increasingly governed by power rather than rules.
“The implication is simple: small countries are no longer safe,” Otubanjo said.
“What we are witnessing is a dangerous erosion of the rules-based international order.”
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
