‘A volatile White House’: What shaped responses to U.S.’s Venezuela attack?

Canada’s statement does not mention the United States, with Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Ananda calling on 'all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law.'

The world woke up Saturday morning to the news that the U.S. had conducted a military operation in Venezuela and captured its president.

While the move by the Trump administration marked a “violation” of international law, experts say, the statements issued by many world leaders appear cautious in tone — and are likely an example of how some are trying to bridge the realities of dealing with “a volatile White House.”

For many U.S. allies, how they respond to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife on narco-terrorism charges may come down to not wanting to anger the U.S. administration, Diez said.

“They’re dealing with a volatile White House,” he said.

“If you say the wrong thing, there’s going to be pushback. I think everything has been very much calibrated in light of the negotiations taking place on trade,” Diez said, referring to the ongoing negotiations on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA) that is up for review this year.

Luis van Isschot, associate professor of history at the University of Toronto, said the U.S. capture is “a particularly bold move, and a particularly bold violation of international law, and of Venezuelan sovereignty.”

“The abduction of Nicolas Maduro and his wife is a violation of international law, and that is not something that I have heard clearly stated yet from Canada or other countries that are close to the United States,” he said.

Article 2 of the UN Charter, to which both the U.S. and Venezuela are signatories, prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”