Had Maduro enjoyed undisputed electoral legitimacy, his capture by a foreign power would have been far more costly. America’s military removal of Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro sent shockwaves far beyond Latin America. In Africa, it was met with indignation and unease.
For many African governments, the event revived longstanding anxieties about sovereignty, external intervention and the fragility of international law in an increasingly polarised world. South Africadescribedit as a manifest violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which prohibits member states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. SA argued that the charter did not authorise external military intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign country.
This position was not merely legalistic, but reflected a deeply rooted African sensitivity shaped by decades of external interference. Ghana was even more explicit,condemningthe use of force outright, saying the operation violated the UN Charter, international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ghanaian authorities warned that attempts to impose external control over another country – including its natural resources – posed serious risks to global peace and stability.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
This language echoed African states’ enduring unease over resource-driven interventions masquerading as security operations. The African Union (AU) expressedconcernover Maduro’s abduction, saying Venezuela’s complex internal challenges could be addressed only through inclusive political dialogue among Venezuelans themselves. Chad, echoing this sentiment,underlinedits commitment to respect for international law and the preservation of Venezuela’s peace, stability and territorial integrity.
Taken together, these reactions reveal a common African instinct: reject the normalisation of regime change by force, regardless of the target or the justification. Some may see these reactions as inconsistent with Africa’s stance on Russia’s Ukraine invasion. But that reading is misleading.
What Africa demonstrates is not inconsistency, but continuity – albeit with variations in tone. In 2022, SAcalledon Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine in accordance with the UN Charter, which enjoins states to resolve disputes peacefully. While Pretoria avoided overtly condemning Moscow in ideological terms, it did not endorse the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Ghana, meanwhile, was unequivocal: Foreign Minister Shirley Ayorkor BotchweydescribedRussia’s invasion as an “unprovoked attack” on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a UN member state. The difference between responses to Ukraine and Venezuela lies less in principle than in register and diplomatic posture. African states have always defended sovereignty and international law; what varies is the political context, the balance of power involved and the space available for rhetorical escalation. The same can be observed in the European Union Commission, whose reactions to Ukraine starkly diverged from what it said about Venezuela.
[/paywall]
