LAB statement, 4 January 2026
The US attack on Venezuela on 3 January 2026 is an event of such importance, with such grave implications, that LAB believes it important to state our position.
There is absolutely no justification for the unilateral US military action against the sovereign state of Venezuela, leading to the abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and their rendition to New York where they have been charged with a number of offences including drug trafficking.
The Trump administration’s action is in clear violation of international law and article 24 of the United Nations Charter. Such an attack could only have been lawful if the US had obtained a resolution from the UN Security Council or was acting in self-defence. But it neither sought nor obtained any such resolution, and no credible evidence has been provided of any attack on US territory or personnel.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned ‘These developments constitute a dangerous precedent,’ and that he is ‘deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.’ Chile’s current president, Gabriel Boric, Brazil’s Lula, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro all condemned US aggression pointing out it broke the UN charter. ‘Attacking countries, in blatant violation of international law, is the first step towards a world of violence, chaos and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,’ wrote Lula.
Others, however, have greeted it with glee, among them Chilean president elect, José Antonio Kast, Daniel Noboa, president of Ecuador, and Argentina’s Javier Milei who said ‘this is excellent news for the free world’.
A significant motive for the US attack is undoubtedly its determination to control and exploit Venezuela’s huge oil reserves – the largest in the world. Trump declared that this is ‘our oil’ because the US oil majors’ facilities and assets in Venezuela were partly nationalized by Chavez in 2006.
The situation for the Venezuelan people is extremely worrying. Even without further overt US intervention, significant violence and even full-scale civil war cannot be ruled out. Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro has mobilized forces to the border, expecting to receive a substantial influx of refugees.
Elsewhere in the region, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Brazil will be fearful of more direct intervention in their countries by an emboldened and increasingly reckless US administration.
Latin Americans have ample experience on which to draw: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexico (not to mention Haiti, Cuba and Grenada in the Caribbean) – all carry the scars of previous US interventions and their destructive impact on lives, natural resources, democratic and human rights.
The ‘DonRoe’ doctrine
The US National Security Strategy, published on 4 December 2025, asserts that the western hemisphere must remain under US control: politically, economically, commercially, and militarily. This amounts to a reassertion and expansion of the Monroe doctrine of 1823, used for two centuries to justify indiscriminate US interference in the affairs of Latin American countries. In the press conference at Mar-a-Lago on 3 January following the attack on Venezuela, Trump said ‘The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the Donroe document.’
The prospects, not only for the people of Venezuela, but for all Latin Americans, are fraught with danger. LAB will do its utmost to document events and to bring you the voices of those most directly affected.
In the coming days we will publish articles by Grace Livingstone, Sue Branford and other LAB correspondents. Among the many news interviews and videos being published in the last few hours, the following interview with Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Colombia University, New York, is particularly interesting.
