Antinuclear

Australia’s Response to US Intervention in Venezuela

8 January 2026 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay

Description

Australia’s response to US intervention in Venezuela raises serious questions about sovereignty, international law, and political courage.

Introduction

The Australia response to US intervention in Venezuela was cautious, restrained, and carefully worded. While the United States openly spoke about taking control of another country’s political future, Australia chose not to condemn the action. For many Australians, this raises an uncomfortable question.

This matters because US intervention in Venezuela sets a precedent for how powerful allies bypass international law while expecting silence from partners like Australia. If Australia claims to support a rule-based international order, why does it fall silent when a powerful ally breaches it?

Context box:

Under the UN Charter, sovereign equality and non-intervention are core principles. These rules are meant to apply to all nations, large or small.

This is not an abstract legal debate. It goes to the heart of whether international law still matters, and whether Australia has an independent foreign policy voice or merely echoes its most powerful partner.

The Problem

US intervention in Venezuela and the assertion of control

The trigger was a public statement by Donald Trump, who said the United States would run Venezuela until a safe and proper transition could occur. The problem begins with how the US intervention in Venezuela was framed, justified, and left largely unchallenged by allied governments. This was not diplomatic language. It was an assertion of authority over a sovereign state.

At the time, Venezuela had a sitting president, Nicolás Maduro. His legitimacy was contested, but under international law, governance disputes do not allow external powers to impose control. There was no UN Security Council mandate, no international trusteeship, and no lawful basis for administering another country.

Australia’s reluctance to name the breach

Australia responded by urging restraint and dialogue, while avoiding any direct criticism of the United States. Statements from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade focused on stability rather than legality.

This creates a clear problem. When breaches go unnamed, norms weaken. Silence becomes precedent.

The Impact

Erosion of international law credibility

The US attack on Venezuela international law debate is not about defending any one government. It is about defending rules that prevent powerful nations from deciding the fate of weaker ones. When allies ignore these rules, enforcement becomes selective.

The consequences of US intervention in Venezuela extend beyond Latin America, weakening global respect for sovereignty and law.

Australia regularly invokes international law when condemning adversaries. When it does not apply the same standards to friends, credibility suffers.

Who benefits from silence

Silence benefits powerful states that wish to act without constraint. It also benefits political leaders who want alliance comfort without accountability. Ordinary Venezuelans do not benefit, and neither do Australians, who rely on international law to protect smaller nations.

The Solution

Reclaiming Australia’s foreign policy sovereignty

Australia’s foreign policy sovereignty does not require hostility toward allies. It requires consistency. Australia can support diplomacy while also saying clearly that external control and regime change violate international law.

A genuinely independent foreign policy would acknowledge that alliances do not override legal obligations.

Using Australia’s monetary sovereignty for peace

Australia has full monetary sovereignty. It is never financially constrained from investing in diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and multilateral institutions. Instead of reflexively aligning with military power, Australia could invest public funds in conflict prevention, mediation, and UN-led solutions that respect self-determination………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/australias-response-to-us-intervention-in-venezuela/

January 13, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international