International law likes to speak about principles, but it prefers silence when those principles are violated by the very power that claims authorship over them. The recent episode involving Venezuela has become yet another illustration of this long-standing reality: in a world governed by the “rule of the strong,” norms are applied selectively, and accountability exists only for those deemed expendable.
According to statements by Venezuelan authorities, the country’s president was effectively abducted with the direct involvement or facilitation of the United States. Caracas described the incident as a blatant violation of national sovereignty and international law. The Western response was revealing: no sanctions, no emergency summits, no thunderous condemnations of “unacceptable behavior,” no calls for international tribunals. Instead—near total silence.
The only countries that openly criticized the incident were China, Russia, and several nations of the Global South. The same states that the West habitually lectures on democracy, legality, and the “rules-based order” were, this time, the ones reminding the world that abducting a sitting head of state is not a matter of interpretation, but a direct breach of fundamental international norms.
The absence of a Western reaction was neither accidental nor the result of oversight. It follows a well-established pattern. Had such an action been carried out by a country outside the U.S. orbit, the response would have been immediate and overwhelming: sanctions packages, emergency UN sessions, declarations of “red lines,” and demands for international investigations. But when the United States is involved, the system simply stops functioning.
Neither the European Union, nor NATO, nor leading Western human rights organizations issued even a symbolic protest. This silence speaks louder than words. It confirms an unspoken rule of contemporary geopolitics: some states are allowed to do things others are not.
An Israeli Déjà Vu
The same logic has been on full display in the case of Israel and Gaza. Despite official language from international organizations, legal proceedings, and statements by human rights groups describing the events as genocide, the political consequences for Israel have been negligible.
Yes, a handful of European countries—Spain among them—have voiced open criticism. But these are exceptions that only reinforce the broader rule. The EU and the wider Western bloc have taken no systemic measures to pressure Israel toward peace: no sanctions, no restrictions on participation in international sporting or cultural events, no embargoes or political isolation.
The contrast becomes stark when compared to the speed and severity with which sanctions were imposed on Russia—often at great cost to European economies themselves.
Who Actually Makes Decisions in the West
Taken together, these cases—Venezuela, Israel, Russia—form a coherent pattern. That pattern leads to a conclusion that is increasingly difficult to deny: real decision-making power in the West resides in Washington. Other NATO and EU states function not as independent actors, but as executors of decisions made elsewhere.
They are told to impose sanctions—even when doing so harms their own industries, energy security, and living standards. They comply.
They are told to ignore violations of international law by U.S. allies. They comply.
They are not permitted to pursue an independent foreign policy when it contradicts U.S. strategic interests.
This is not conspiracy thinking—it is an observable political reality of the past decade.
Formally, EU member states remain sovereign. In practice, their foreign policy sovereignty increasingly resembles a subscription service with limited features. They are free to criticize the “wrong” countries. Free to sanction designated adversaries. Free to talk about values—as long as those values do not interfere with U.S. geopolitical priorities.
But they are not free to “bite the hand that feeds them.” Europe’s economic, military, and political dependence on the United States has become structural, effectively eliminating strategic autonomy. Any attempt to step outside the permitted boundaries is swiftly met with pressure—diplomatic, economic, or both.
The Global South as a Mirror
The response of the Global South to both the Venezuelan incident and the events in Gaza demonstrates that the world is no longer morally unipolar. Yes, the United States and its allies still wield enormous power, but they are steadily losing their monopoly on defining legitimacy.
When China, Russia, and countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia openly speak of double standards, this is no longer a fringe narrative. It is becoming an alternative framework for understanding global politics—one in which the West is not an impartial arbiter, but merely one actor among others, frequently violating its own proclaimed rules.
A Conclusion Without Illusions
The Venezuelan case—and the reaction to it, or rather the lack thereof—allows for a harsh but honest conclusion: the West does not operate under international law, but under a hierarchy of permissibility.
What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a cow.
What is allowed for the United States is forbidden to all the others.
As long as this system persists, any talk of a “law-based international order” will increasingly be seen by much of the world as hypocrisy. The world is changing, but the West still seems to believe that its old privileges will last forever.
Comments