The rapidly escalating crisis in Venezuela has drawn a rare, forceful response from the African Union after U.S. strikes and President Nicolás Maduro’s capture.
The statement highlights the AU’s commitment to international norms and calls for immediate dialogue to prevent further regional instability, drawing parallels to ongoing debates about foreign interventions in sovereign states.
The document, addressed from the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, outlines the organization’s stance in clear terms. It states: “The African Union is following with grave concern the recent developments in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, including reports of the abduction of the President of the Republic, Mr. Nicolás Maduro, and military attacks on Venezuelan institutions.”
It reaffirms core principles: “The African Union reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the fundamental principles of international law, including respect for the sovereignty of States, their territorial integrity, and the right of peoples to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”
Emphasizing internal resolution, the AU notes: “The complex internal challenges facing Venezuela can only be sustainably addressed through inclusive political dialogue among Venezuelans themselves.”
The statement concludes with a plea for restraint: “The African Union calls upon all parties concerned to exercise restraint, responsibility, and respect for international law to prevent any escalation and to preserve regional peace and stability.”
This communiqué, multilingual in its headers (including English, French, Arabic, Swahili, and Portuguese), underscores the AU’s role as a pan-African voice advocating for non-interference and peaceful resolutions.
The AU’s position has resonated widely across the continent, with several African governments and media outlets echoing calls for de-escalation and criticizing the U.S. actions as a breach of sovereignty.
South Africa, a key AU member, has been particularly vocal, urging the United Nations Security Council to convene urgently. A statement from Pretoria read: “South Africa calls on the UN Security Council, the body mandated to maintain international peace and security, to urgently convene to address the crisis in Venezuela.” This reflects Pretoria’s long-standing foreign policy emphasis on multilateralism and opposition to unilateral military actions.
In Nigeria, media reports highlighted the AU’s solidarity with Venezuela, with outlets like GWG noting “backlash” against the U.S. for what they termed the “abduction” of Maduro.
Kenyan publication The Star emphasized the AU’s concern over “reports of the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and military attacks on state institutions,” framing it as a threat to global order.
Ethiopian and Somali voices joined in, with Birrmetrics reporting the AU’s call for “restraint after reports of a US operation in Venezuela detaining President Nicolás Maduro,” while stressing dialogue to uphold sovereignty.
Tanzanian outlet Diramakini described the situation as an “alarm over Venezuela unrest,” quoting the AU’s grave concerns Even social media influencers and journalists, such as Somalia’s Mohamed Dek Abdalla, amplified the message, stating: “The African Union voices grave concern over developments in Venezuela, including the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and attacks on state institutions.”
These reactions reveal a unified African front, often drawing from the continent’s history of colonial interventions and post-independence struggles for autonomy.
Critics like Nigerian commentator Nedum Emmanuel, however, pointed out inconsistencies like: “The African Union calling Nicolás Maduro ‘President’ tells you how they actually think… recognizing an illegitimate ruler in Venezuela is not surprising.”
Yet, the overarching theme is solidarity against external aggression. Venezuela’s political turmoil traces back to the early 2000s under Hugo Chávez, whose socialist policies initially boosted oil-dependent prosperity but sowed seeds for economic collapse. Nicolás Maduro, Chávez’s successor since 2013, has presided over hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass emigration amid disputed elections. The 2018 vote, boycotted by opposition and deemed fraudulent by many observers, led to international isolation.
The U.S. has long opposed Maduro, imposing sanctions and, in 2019, recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges, offering a $15 million bounty for his arrest, accusing him of leading a “Cartel of the Suns” involved in drug trafficking.
These actions escalated tensions, culminating in the 2026 military strikes and capture, which U.S. President Donald Trump justified as necessary to “run” Venezuela and combat alleged threats.
Human rights groups like Amnesty International have documented abuses under Maduro, including arbitrary detentions and suppression of dissent, but also warn that U.S. intervention exacerbates the humanitarian crisis affecting millions.
Venezuela’s alliances with Russia, China, and some African nations via oil diplomacy add layers, making AU’s response a nod to shared anti-imperialist sentiments.
From a global viewpoint, the U.S. actions raise profound questions about international law, echoing debates over interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Experts argue the strikes and capture violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres labeled it a “dangerous precedent,” while China called it a “clear violation of international law.”
The principle of non-intervention, codified in the 1965 UN Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention, further underscores that no state shall “interfere in the internal affairs of another.”
Legal scholars at the Atlantic Council note: “While Maduro must be held accountable for human rights violations, the United States’ unlawful actions must be condemned.”
The U.S. defends the move under self-defense doctrines, but critics, including the Washington Office on Latin America, warn it “violates international law and sets a dangerous precedent.”
In Latin America, reactions are mixed: Allies like Cuba and Nicaragua condemn it, while others like Brazil express caution. Globally, this could strain U.S. relations with the Global South, where memories of regime-change operations linger, potentially emboldening similar actions elsewhere.
****URN****