By Tiamiyu Prudence Arobani
New York, Jan. 3, 2026
The African Union (AU) and the Republic of South Africa have issued forceful diplomatic condemnations following reports of U.S. military attacks in Venezuela, including the alleged abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. Their statements frame the incident not as an isolated event, but as a profound challenge to the foundational principles of the post-World War II international order.
The AU’s position, outlined in an official communiqué, is rooted in the core tenets of its Constitutive Act. “The African Union reaffirms its steadfast commitment to international law, including respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and peoples’ right to self-determination,” the statement declared. This emphasis is deeply informed by Africa’s own colonial and post-colonial history, where external intervention has often exacerbated conflict rather than resolved it. The AU stressed that “dialogue, peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for constitutional and institutional frameworks” are the only legitimate pathways to stability, implicitly rejecting regime change by force as a tool of foreign policy.
Significantly, the AU framed Venezuela’s crisis as an internal matter requiring a Venezuelan solution. “Venezuela’s complex internal challenges can only be resolved through inclusive political dialogue among Venezuelans themselves,” it stated, a position that aligns with its general approach to conflicts within member states. The Union expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people and called for restraint to “prevent escalation and preserve regional peace” in Latin America—a region, like Africa, historically wary of great power hegemony.
South Africa’s response was even more pointed, taking the rare step of demanding an urgent session of the UN Security Council. The government in Pretoria labeled U.S. actions a “manifest violation of the UN Charter,” specifically citing Article 2(4), which obligates states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. For South Africa, a leader of the “Global South” and a vocal advocate for a multipolar world, this incident represents a direct assault on the principle of sovereign equality.
“History has repeatedly demonstrated that military invasions yield only instability and deepening crisis,” South Africa’s statement noted, a clear allusion to recent Western interventions in the Middle East and North Africa that it views as catastrophic failures. It argued that “unlawful, unilateral force undermines the international order”—a system it has long sought to reform to better reflect contemporary global realities and reduce the dominance of a few powerful states.
The triggering event was U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement on Truth Social, claiming a “large-scale strike” had resulted in the capture of Maduro and his wife. U.S. Attorney-General Pam Bondi added that the pair would face “the full wrath of American justice on American soil.” These declarations, presented without immediate detail on legal justification or UN sanction, are what prompted the sharp African responses.
The coordinated African stance highlights a significant geopolitical rift. It underscores a growing consensus among many non-aligned and developing nations that the rules-based international system is selectively applied. Their alarm signals a potential diplomatic confrontation at the UN, where the legitimacy of unilateral military action, even by a permanent Security Council member, will be fiercely debated. The coming days will test whether the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, cornerstones of the UN system, can withstand the pressure of great power politics in the 21st century.
Edited by Kamal Tayo Oropo
Source link
