Washington's Venezuelan Heist: Three Ways It Broke the Rules

The US invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro for trial in America read like bad pulp fiction—except it actually happened.

Washington slapped Maduro with four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess those weapons targeting the United States. At his court appearance, Maduro stated plainly: "I was kidnapped, I am innocent". He denied every allegation and reminded the court he remains Venezuela's president—now branded a war criminal by American prosecutors.

When Self-Protection Becomes a Crime

Two of the four charges, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, belong in a satire, not a courtroom. What crime did Maduro commit by possessing weapons in his own country's capital to protect himself? If these charges hold water, US law and justice have become truly farcical.

The narco-terrorism and cocaine importation charges are, naturally, fabricated accusations. The US has produced zero concrete evidence proving Maduro organized any drug trafficking operation.

This US operation—abducting another country's president for trial in America—allegedly violates international law in three distinct ways.

Violation One: Banned Use of Force

According to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, using force or threatening force in international relations is prohibited. This US military operation received no UN Security Council authorization and doesn't constitute "self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Washington claims the operation was self-defense against drug-related crimes, but international law experts broadly agree that combating drug trafficking fails to meet the strict conditions for self-defense or humanitarian intervention under international law—it cannot justify using force against another country.

Violation Two: Sovereignty and Non-Interference

According to Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, the US deployment of troops to invade Venezuela violated Venezuela's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.

Washington used domestic law as justification to conduct cross-border law enforcement through military means, attempting to engineer regime change in Venezuela—a textbook case of interference in another country's internal affairs.

Violation Three: Head of State Immunity

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law, a head of state enjoys immunity during their term of office, even when in other countries.

The US crossed borders to arrest Maduro and drag him to America for trial—an act of kidnapping that completely disregards head of state immunity and brazenly destroys international conventions and legal principles.

No UN Mandate, No Legitimacy

To summarize: this US operation lacked UN Security Council authorization and doesn't comply with the collective security mechanism for lawful use of force under international law. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, such US behavior sets a dangerous precedent.

The US openly trampled international law, yet its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas—Britain, France, and Germany all responded with vague statements or outright support. Take Britain: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dodged questions with the excuse that "it is not straightforward. It is complicated," and danced around every question.

Even senior Labour MPs found his evasiveness unsatisfactory. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the US action has no basis in international law whatsoever, and Britain needs to clearly state the US violated international law. She argued that if the West cannot mount a coherent and forceful response, international law norms will collapse.

However, she also suffers from the common affliction of Western politicians: bringing up China unprompted. She claimed that if the West doesn't condemn US military intervention in Venezuela, it might set an extremely bad precedent for countries like China and Russia. She speculated that countries like China and Russia might think, “that they should all have their spheres of influence and that other countries should not get involved and they should be able to essentially do what they think is the right thing to do, what they want to do in the interests of their country, in the countries in the surrounding area…

She went further, stating that “President Putin will presumably say, well, Ukraine is in my sphere of influence - what are you complaining about? And Xi may well say that about Taiwan. It sets a terrible precedent and [is] really worrying."

While I largely agree with British MP Thornberry's criticism of the US trampling international law, when she mentions Taiwan, she reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about international law. The People's Republic of China restored its seat at the United Nations in October 1971 and is China's only legitimate government and a permanent member of the Security Council. Taiwan was expelled from the UN in 1971, and the international community—including the United States—has long recognized Taiwan as part of China. Therefore, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting use of force in international relations, Article 2(1) prohibiting violation of other countries' sovereignty, and the Vienna Convention's provisions on head of state immunity all target states as subjects and are completely inapplicable to China's handling of the Taiwan issue, because Taiwan is not a country but merely a province of China.

Though Thornberry displays ignorance about international law, her remarks still contain a kernel of logic: since the US did this to Venezuela and its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas, they've forfeited any right to comment on how China treats Taiwan.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

At the arrival of 2026, the happiest thing is to see the "Hong Kong is dead" narrative—proclaimed so loudly by Western voices—die yet again.

Foreign Money Returns Home

The West has written Hong Kong's obituary more times than you can count. They believed the city's return to China should have been its death sentence. American magazine Fortune declared "The Death of Hong Kong" on its 1995 cover—two years before the handover even happened. Hong Kong survived the Asian financial turmoil in the early post-handover years. It survived SARS. Then came 2019's Black Riots, followed by US sanctions on Hong Kong officials in 2020 and the pandemic's hammer blow. Foreign capital fled in an American-orchestrated exodus, with much of it landing in Singapore.

Last February, Stephen Roach—Yale University senior fellow—wrote in the UK's Financial Times with a headline that said it all: "It pains me to say Hong Kong is over." Foreign investors don't just track economic growth when they assess Hong Kong. They watch the stock market. And over the past year, Hong Kong's miraculous stock market comeback has bankrupted the "Hong Kong is dead" theory.

Hong Kong's economy grew an estimated 3.2% in 2025—ranking it among the developed world's top performers. But the stock market performance was getting really interesting. Average daily turnover in the first 11 months hit HK$230.7 billion—a massive 43% jump compared to 2024's same period.

Record-Breaking Fundraising Wins

The Hong Kong Stock Exchange crushed it in 2025. A total of 119 new listings raised HK$285.8 billion—a staggering 220% year-on-year increase and the highest since 2021. According to KPMG's report, HKEX ranked first globally in fundraising. The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq tied for second place. Looking ahead, HKEX's fundraising is estimated to reach HK$300-350 billion in 2026, keeping it among the world's top exchanges.

Sure, Mainland capital is investing in Hong Kong. But foreign capital's return has been the real game-changer behind the stock market's strong performance. According to fund industry insiders, what we're seeing now is only wave one—primarily hedge funds and other medium-to-short-term players. As Hong Kong's trading volumes swell and quality Mainland companies list here, the long-term foreign funds will gradually return. The outlook for Hong Kong stocks continues to look favorable.

America's narrative said Hong Kong's National Security Law would scare capital away. Reality proved exactly the opposite. Hong Kong's stable environment gave Chinese companies the confidence to list here. America's targeting of Chinese concept stocks listed on its exchanges was self-destruction—forcing quality Chinese companies to turn to Hong Kong for listing instead. This made Hong Kong's stock market bigger and stronger, compelling even bearish foreign capital to come back.

Beijing's Seal of Approval

President Xi's remarks when meeting Chief Executive John Lee during his duty visit to Beijing in mid-December reveal what work the central government values in Hong Kong. President Xi opened with praise for the Chief Executive's courage and initiative in leading the SAR government. He highlighted four key achievements: steadfast maintenance of national security, successful Legislative Council elections, proactive integration into national development, and achieving steady economic growth.

President Xi's assessment underscores Beijing's high recognition of Hong Kong's ability to do both—safeguard national security and develop the economy simultaneously. Some Hong Kong people believed that having transitioned "from chaos to governance and then to prosperity," the city should set aside national security to focus on economic development. Reality proved this view wrong. Hong Kong must strike a balance between these seemingly contradictory goals and advance on both fronts at once.

Look at Hong Kong's development over the past five years. The city emerged from Black Riots and the pandemic in 2021, achieving a strong rebound from the bottom in 2023. The return to normalcy brought revenge spending that temporarily elevated market sentiment.

But entering 2024, local consumption patterns underwent structural changes. Hong Kong people shopping across the border diverted local retail spending. The strong Hong Kong dollar—tracking the US dollar—and high interest rates suppressed economic activity, leading to structural adjustment.

By the second half of 2025, Hong Kong entered a phase of moderate recovery. The property market began stabilizing after its decline. With the US starting rate cuts in September, capital supply loosened. Hong Kong can continue along this recovery path in 2026—that's the estimate anyway.

Despite the optimism, Hong Kong people must keep working hard. The many vacant shops you see on the streets tell the story—retail economy pressure remains real. In 2024, Hong Kong's total retail sales value of HK$376.8 billion represented a 7.3% year-on-year decline. That's painful for the retail sector.

Retail's Reversal Ahead

Through October 2025, retail sales values remained comparable to the previous year. But consumption began recovering in the second half—retail sales value rose 3.8% in August, 6% in September, and 6.9% in October. 2025 showed an early decline followed by growth, with accelerating consumption momentum. Retail consumption is expected to reverse its decline in 2026.

During this retail transformation, we Hong Kong people must continue their efforts. Old businesses will still be eliminated—that's inevitable. Strategic adjustments are required. New opportunities must be pursued.

Bottom line: Hong Kong's economic performance in 2025 proves once again that the "Hong Kong is dead" theory dies—one more time. Hong Kong has weathered different shocks repeatedly in the past, emerging reborn each time like a phoenix from the ashes.

 

Lo Wing Hung