Home » Imperialism
Category Archives: Imperialism
The Caracas Job: International Law and Geo-Political Smash and Grab
So, they actually did it, eh?
It’s January 2026, and I, for one, am still trying to remember my work logins and wondering if this is the year that Aliens invade Earth. Yet, across the pond, the Americans have decided to kick off the New Year with a throwback classic: decapitating a sovereign Latin-American government.
Adiós Maduro. We hardly know yer pal. Well, we all knew you enough to know you were a disastrous authoritarian kleptocrat who managed to bankrupt a country sitting on a lake of oil. But we need to talk about how it happened, because if you listen carefully enough to the wind wuthering through the empty corridors of the UN Building in New York, you can probably hear the death rattle of what I once studied and was quaintly entitled, ‘Rules-Based International Order’-aka International Law.
As one colleague and our very own Dr Manos Daskolou pointed out to me this very day, it’s almost eighty years since 1945. Eight decades of pretending we built a civilised global architecture out of the ashes of World War II. We built tribunals in The Hague, we wrote very sternly worded Geneva Conventions, and we created a Security Council where superpowers could veto each other into paralysis. It was a lovely piece of Geo-Political theatre.
The days-old removal of the Venezuelan head of state by direct US intervention isn’t just a deviation from the norm: it’s a flagrant breach of the foundational prohibition on the ‘use of force’ found in Article 2(4) of The UN Charter. The mask has slipped, and underneath it is just raw, naked power.
As a Brit observing this rigmarole from the very cold and soggy sidelines, it’s hard not to view this from a very specific lens. We invented modern imperialism, after all. Criminologists will often discuss concepts like State Crimes. They will often question who indeed polices the Police?
If I decide to kick down my neighbour’s door because I don’t like the way she runs her household, steal her assets and install her sister as the new head of the family, I’m going to court. I am a burglar, a thug and a violent criminal. If a superpower does the same thing to a sovereign nation, they get a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.
For eighty years, the West has been incredibly successful at labelling its own interventions as ‘police actions’ or ‘humanitarian missions’, all the while labelling acts of rivals as ‘aggression’. The Caracas job is the ultimate expression of this.
Listen to the rhetoric coming out of Washington right now. It’s textbook gaslighting. ‘Maduro was a tyrant’, ‘Other countries do worse’, i.e condemning the condemners. They certainly are not arguing that entry into Caracas was legal under the UN Charter was legal because it most definitely wasn’t. They are arguing that the law should not apply to them because their intentions were pure.
Deja Vu-Iraq
The darkest irony of the Venezuelan decapitation is the crushing sense of deja vu. We cannot talk about removing a dictator in the 2020s without flashbacks to Saddam Hussein and Dr David Kelly entering the scene. The parallels are screaming at us. In 2003, the justification for taking Saddam (and, sadly, Dr Kelly as a direct result) out was a cocktail of WMD lies and dangerous rhetoric. As the Chilcot Report stated years ago, the legal basis for military action against Iraq was ‘far from satisfactory’.
The critical failure in Iraq and the one we are doomed to repeat in Venezuela is that it is terrifyingly easy for a superpower like the USA to smash a second-rate military. The hard part is what on earth comes next?
Perhaps it would have been better for the superpowers to manipulate Maduro’s own people, taking him out, so to speak. Organic change in any situation lends legitimacy that enforced or imported change never does. When you decapitate a state at 30,000 feet, you create a vacuum. The USA may have created a dependency, effectively violating the principle of self-determination, which is enshrined in the Human Rights Convention.
The Iranian Elephant In The Room
Of course, none of this is actually happening in a vacuum. Being a Yorkshire lass with Middle Eastern Heritage, I am keenly aware of the politics of the regions hitting the headlines on an almost daily basis. Yet, no one has to have bloodline ties to any of the countries or regions involved to see the obvious Elephant in the room. It’s that flipping obvious. Maduro wasn’t just an irritant because of his economy-crashing style. It was a strategic flipping of the bird for America’s rivals-Crucially, Iran. This is where the narrative gets even darker. This is gang warfare.
The danger here is escalation. If Tehran decides that the fall of Maduro constitutes a direct challenge to its own deterrence strategy, it will not retaliate in the Caribbean. They are likely (if history has taught us anything) to retaliate in the Strait of Hormuz. The butterfly effect of a regime change in Caracas could easily result in the closure of the Suez Canal. Yes, that old chestnut.
The old guard loved International Law. They loved it because they knew how to manipulate it. They used the UN Council like a skilled Barrister uses a loophole. They built coalitions. The current approach-Let’s call it ‘Act Now Think Later Diplomacy’ dispenses with the formalities and paperwork. It sees International Law NOT as a tool to be manipulated, but as an annoying restraint to be ignored. It confirms the narrative that the Nuremberg trials were merely ‘Victors’ Justice’, a system where legal accountability is the privilege of the defeated.
The difference between Putin invading Ukraine and the USA decapitating Venezuela is rapidly becoming a distinction without a difference.
So, here we go in 2026. The powerful have shown they don’t give a toss about the rules. They’ve shown that ‘sovereignty’ is just a word they use in speeches, not really a word they respect.
When people stop believing in the legitimacy of the law, they usually stop following it. We are about to see what happens when the entire world stops believing in the legitimacy of International Law.
It is going to be a messy few decades. Cheers, mine’s a double.
Share this:
The colour of my skin
In recent weeks one politician, let’s call him “Doug” questioned the colour of another politician, let’s call her “Karen”. According to Doug, Karen decided to change the colour of her skin from brown to black. The way the colour change took place was presented as capricious and confusing. This little discussion took place in an event organised by the National Association of Black Journalists and it raised some very negative reactions namely on Doug’s audacity to interfere with the right of another person, in this case Karen, to self-identify and chose her own racial identity.
Perhaps these comments will be remembered or forgotten, but regardless they resonate with me because racial profiling and race identification is still a highly contested term in judicial processes namely law enforcement. It is even more controversial when considering the origins of these racial profiling and attribution. One word: colonialism! I appreciate that this is something that we converse about when we are talking about historical events, on empire expansion and exploitation, that led to genocide and slavery, but this is when I actually think that is partially the picture. Maybe because the roots on colonialism live with us and they still influence our social reality.
Colonialism turned skin colour into a commodity. It became part of the empire’s structure and all European and European influenced empires (i.e. USA or Australia) stand accused of their influence in criminalising skin and racial features. This influence is long lasting and its indelibly connected with the glorious past of all empires. Colourism and racial profiling were exploited to justify some of the most heinous crimes in human history.
To explain; colonialism sounds like an act that happened and eventually ended in time of British abolition of slavery and in US the Emancipation proclamation. After that, the world fought against it and all forms of it internationally entering article 4 of the UN convention. All is well! On the contrary! My point is that colonialism is far more insidious and deceitful. People presume that skin colour is a description of attributes and for millennia it was; the intensity of imperial exploitation of people used the colour of the skin as an obvious demarcation of racial separation. That allowed the imperial powers to keep different populations under control. Colour became the vehicle of oppression and subjugation. Empires thrived in dividing the population, utilising race and colour as a wedge that will make it difficult to understand their connected history of repression, making it difficult for people to rise against the tyranny of imperialism.
Consider the following. A fourth or fifth child of a Scottish labourer back in the early 19th century. Barely educated in reading and writing in a village in the highlands from a family that is hardly making ends meet. At age 17 he will join the British red coats or scarlet tunics, to be sent anywhere in the empire. This young man with hardly any life experience will be travelling across the world, using the privilege of his uniform to take, steal and do whatever he wants with impunity.[1] Years after he will return back to the village he came from with wealth and loot. His contemporaries will hail him as a success. In a garage sale today, a delightful old lady is holding a precious tea cup left by her beloved great-grandfather.
She holds it in her trembling hands as if the tea cup is talking to her, giving her meaning. Who can dare to tell this lovely old lady the history of this cup; the blood and pain that it contained long before it travelled across continents? This is why colonialism is so insidious because it’s subversive making people of the present and the future, custodians of that past, even unbeknown to them.
Of course, in the original instance between Doug and Karen, what is left out is the biggest and most challenging facet. That purity of race is a great read for those studying ethnology in the early 20th century, but we now know that people’s colours and races are a mixture of transgenerational journeys. People who identify as mixed race, a constituency of people, largely ignored by colonialism because it did not fit into their absurd sense of race classification, is rising.
Empire with its tales of heroism and greatness makes people yearn for a past that never existed, from a partial perspective that benefited the oppressors, minimising the impact it had on those who they oppressed. People, their cultures and most importantly their physiology become the casualties of said greatness. Years and years ago, in conversation with a dear Persian friend I realised that Alexander was Great for me but for Darius, my friend, he was Alexander the Accursed. If we can see beyond the “greatness” of our own past, perhaps we can read human history more accurately, where human attributes are just that and the colour of the skin should bear no consequences on people’s life or death.
[1] Similarly to the actions of a Scottish nobleman who stripped off the sculptures of a national monument; something akin to a sport of plunder among the European empires.
Thoughts from the criminology team 
