Australia must confront difficult questions after the United States’ recent actions in Venezuela, which legal experts say constitute a serious violation of international law. The Trump administration’s seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, alongside airstrikes in Caracas, has been widely criticised as a breach of the UN Charter, which prohibits the “use of force” against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Professor Donald Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, notes that the US cannot justify the operation as self-defence, as there is no evidence Venezuela posed an imminent threat. Geoffrey Robertson KC has described the operation as an act of US aggression, placing it among the gravest breaches of international law.
Australia’s response has been comparatively muted, raising questions about the country’s position on unilateral US military actions, especially given Canberra’s strong condemnation of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Experts warn that the Trump administration’s willingness to use force to advance US interests including potential efforts to replace Venezuela’s acting president and control the country’s oil reserves has broader implications for allies such as Australia.
With Australia deeply entwined in US defence frameworks through ANZUS and AUKUS, Rothwell says Canberra must consider how it would respond if US military adventurism were challenged in the Indo-Pacific. “These developments test whether the Trump administration is committed to the rules-based international order that Australia has long supported,” he said.
The Venezuelan episode, alongside recent US strikes in Iran, Nigeria, and the Caribbean, highlights a more assertive US approach to military action—a trend that could have direct legal and strategic consequences for Australia in the region.
