Debunking Critics of Maduro's Arrest
Here's how critics of the American's capture of the Venezuelan despot are wrongly echoing the sentiments of Russia, China, and Iran.
The world awoke this morning to news that the American President had ordered a precision special forces strike, resulting in the successful capture of Nicolás Maduro, the narco-terrorist who has been allowed to illegitimately cling to power in Venezuela by ineffectual multilateral institutions and propped up by other despotic regimes.
But not everyone is celebrating what is undoubtedly a victory for justice and democracy.
Across the world, and here in Canada, the talking points against the American action largely echo those of regime leaders who have benefited from Maduro’s oppression of the Venezuelan people and have no compunction about continuing to profit from it (namely, the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran).
While the situation is certainly evolving, and a lot is still to be resolved, here’s a first analysis of why and how some of this debate is almost certainly wrongheaded.
Talking point #1: Capturing Maduro was a violation of the rule of law and of state sovereignty.
Fugitives wanted for serious crimes cannot shield themselves behind borders to avoid justice, and it is deeply wrong to state otherwise. Here’s why.
Nicolás Maduro is wanted for serious international crimes, including those for which the United States have indicted him. According to multiple human rights watchdogs, he and his regime have committed widespread acts of brutality, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law. They violently suppressed protests, especially after the recent rigged elections, with security forces implicated in extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary detentions. Reports detail crimes against detainees that include mass beatings, electric shocks, asphyxiation, and sexual violence, even against women and children. Reputable international human rights organizations have characterized these acts as crimes against humanity, for which no justice has yet been delivered.
Political persecution has also been a hallmark of Maduro’s rule, including the arrest and torture of opposition figures, journalists, and activists, often on fabricated charges of treason or terrorism. Moreover, his regime has precipitated a profound humanitarian crisis through rampant economic mismanagement, corruption, and disastrous policies, resulting in widespread hunger, severe medical shortages, and a mass exodus of millions of Venezuelan refugees.
And so, while state sovereignty is a fundamental principle, it is not absolute and does not confer impunity on individuals like Maduro who stand accused of serious transnational or international crimes. This is precisely why mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction exist, enabling the pursuit and capture of such figures across borders to ensure they face justice. These frameworks prevent national borders from serving as safe havens for fugitives and affirm that sovereignty must also ensure global interest in accountability for offenses like terrorism, drug trafficking, and crimes against humanity.
The American capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989 for drug trafficking similarly, and justly, framed out enforcing U.S. indictments under the protective principle, which permits jurisdiction over acts abroad that threaten a state’s security (read, Maduro being indicted for narcoterrorism).
Tangential arguments to this point can be made given that Maduro is not a legitimate leader. In the 2024 Venezuelan election, independent election observers showed opponent Edmundo González winning by a landslide while the government-controlled electoral council declared Maduro the victor without releasing verifiable evidence, amid allegations of fraud and violent repression. The illegitimacy of the Maduro regime became the position of many Western countries, including Canada, the European Union, and others.
Given Maduro’s crimes and his illegitimacy, the fact he has not been brought to face justice outlines a startling failure of multilateralism to enforce the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, wherein sovereignty is tied to responsibility (that is, if a government fails to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, or perpetrates these crimes against them, the international community may intervene). (In fact, an argument could be made that the American’s surgical capture of Maduro is justified under the R2P doctrine, given the principles of R2P dictate that states have a responsibility to protect civilians when circumstances demand it, but that’s an article for another day).
TL;DR: Those implicitly arguing that allowing a despotic criminal like Maduro to remain free is a win for an international rules based order need to give their head a shake, and should turn their attention to how to fix the failure of multilateralism to bring him to justice sooner.
Talking point #2: Maduro’s capture will negatively impact Canadian oil prices and boomer pensions.
This morning, former provincial Liberal Party leader Kevin Vickers (and a personal hero of mine for his courageous actions in the 2014 Parliament Hill shootings), offered an uncharacteristically misguided take on Maduro’s capture.
Starting with the obvious, as my colleague Blaine Calkins quipped to me this morning, irony is dead when a partisan Liberal blames the depressed state of Canadian oil prices on the capture of Maduro as opposed to the decade of anti-resource development policies the Liberals themselves were responsible for.
But worse, that a man of Kevin Vickers’s intellect, bravery, and stature saw fit to publicly argue that it was somehow justifiable to let Maduro evade justice for his heinous crimes merely because of potential impacts on pension funds invested in Canadian energy stocks reveals a dangerous moral relativism that has become pervasive in our country. It is deeply troubling that this mindset has taken hold among certain segments of Canadians who have, through the decadence of peace, become detached from the harsh realities of how easily freedom can be lost and how hard it is to reclaim.
TL;DR: If someone is more concerned about the potential impact of bringing Maduro to justice on energy prices and pension funds than about the terror he inflicted on the world, they should ask themselves whether they are comfortable sharing the same priorities as the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese leaders who propped him up for years.
Talking point #3: Capturing Maduro was American imperialism.
At a minimum, Maduro needed to be brought to justice for his crimes. And in a maximal situation, if a peaceful transition to a legitimate, duly elected Venezuelan leader occurs, with their arrest of Maduro, the Americans may have just put an end to Iranian, Russian and Chinese imperialism over the Venezuelan people via their support for the illegitimate despot.
While the situation is evolving, as of writing, the Americans have not expressly stated that they intend to prevent a peaceful transition of power to a duly elected government, or engage in extended military conflict. Rather, that they captured Maduro with a precision extraction that was designed to prevent civilian casualties and avoid civilians altogether is a miracle for which the world owes them a debt of gratitude.
TL;DR: While the situation is evolving, listen to Nobel Peace Prize winner and Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado Parisca who said, “Some people talk about invasion in Venezuela... I answer, Venezuela has already been invaded. We have Russian agents, Iranian agents, terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, operating freely in accordance with the regime...” .
Talking point #4: Capturing Maduro was unconstitutional vis a vis the American Constitution.
While the situation is evolving, as of writing, this argument has flaws.
This is because the United States Constitution, under Article II, does vest the American President with inherent authority to protect national security interests and enforce federal laws, including the apprehension of indicted fugitives abroad who pose imminent threats such as narcoterrorism. Arguments are already emerging that President Trump’s Article II responsibilities, which encompass safeguarding American personnel and citizens from actual or imminent attacks, apply directly here. This is particularly relevant given Maduro’s alleged orchestration of massive cocaine flows into the United States through alliances with groups like FARC, actions that arguably place American lives in direct jeopardy.
That said, thy key in sustaining this argument will be a swift, successful and peaceful transition of power to a duly elected, legitimate Venezuelan leader. Having this happen with no further military intervention from the Americans could cement Maduro’s capture as constitutional within the United States given it would likely align with American previous precedents such as the operation against Manuel Noriega. The same can be said to those who may argue that American congressional authorization should have been undertaken prior to the capture, as this argument overlooks the fact that the American Constitution reserves war declarations for sustained engagement, not surgical strikes to uphold indictments.
In the days ahead, leaders who are concerned with constitutionality should simultaneously be seized with difficult questions which include how multilateral institutions failed to bring Maduro to justice without American intervention.
TL;DR: If someone with the legitimacy of opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia, who is widely recognized by many international observers (including implicitly by Canada) as the just winner of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, is swiftly sworn in and successfully assumes power through a peaceful transition, it will be difficult for critics to sustain an argument of unconstitutionality.
A lot rests on what happens in the aftermath of last night’s events, to be sure.
So while this situation is evolving and will have major geopolitical consequences, the reality is that Maduro needed to be brought to face justice, which the Americans have done (so far) with surgical precision.
If Maduro sees justice in American courts as a new, legitimate, democratically selected Venezuelan government peacefully comes to power, a victory for moral clarity will have been had and the Americans will be owed a debt of gratitude.
God willing, that’s what the outcome will be.