The American military attack on Venezuela, the abduction of the President of the Republic Nicolás Maduro and his wife, their transfer back to US territory, and the announcement that they would be put on trial before a US federal court in New York on charges of violating US laws and working to smuggle weapons and drugs into the United States, provoked numerous reactions at both the official and popular levels, as well as among political forces and parties, trade unions, civil society organizations, and public opinion, in a large number of countries around the world across different continents.
In this article, we will focus on presenting and analyzing the official positions of the main Western European countries and seeking to interpret these positions by tracing them back to the reasons and motives that may have led those governments to adopt and announce them in the manner that actually occurred.
On the one hand, it can be said that the positions of the main Western European countries as a whole agreed on a number of broad and general lines, which included, among other things, calling on the concerned parties to remain calm, exercise self-restraint, avoid any escalation, and work toward a peaceful settlement of the conflict. At the same time, they were keen to emphasize the necessity of adhering to international law and its principles, as well as to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter, while stressing that any resolution of the American–Venezuelan conflict must respect international law and be peaceful in nature.
Although the majority of leaders, heads of government, and foreign ministers of the main Western European countries did not declare support for the American military operation against Venezuela, some of them pointed out that the system of governance of the abducted president, “Maduro,” lacked the pillars of legitimacy. This appeared to be an attempt by these figures to achieve a kind of political balance, away from a strictly legal position, between expressing a certain degree of criticism of the American military operation against Venezuela and, at the same time, expressing dissatisfaction with the way Venezuela had been governed by the “Maduro” regime prior to the American military intervention.
It is worth noting here, however, that several Western European politicians, writers, and intellectuals expressed concern about the challenges posed by this American military operation to what were believed to be globally agreed-upon rules governing the international system. This raises the concern over conferring legitimacy on unilateral military interventions in the internal affairs of other states in the future.
Spain was perhaps the only major Western European country to clearly diplomatically condemn the American military operation against Venezuela. Through its Prime Minister, “Pedro Sánchez”, and its Foreign Minister, “José Manuel Albares”, Spain described the operation as a clear violation of international law and as a dangerous precedent. Even so, Spain sought to balance this clear condemnation by calling for de-escalation and the adoption of peaceful negotiations as a means of resolving disputes, and the Spanish government also offered to mediate to reach a peaceful settlement.
In the case of another major Western European country, France, what happened could be interpreted as a divergence in the positions of senior officials within the same government, though others might also interpret it as a division of roles among them. On the one hand, the French Foreign Minister, “Jean-Noël Barrot”, considered the American military operation against Venezuela a violation of the principle of non-use of force in international relations, a peremptory and governing principle of international law, except in cases authorized by the United Nations Charter.
On the other hand, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, was more ambiguous in his reaction. While he acknowledged the collapse of the political system of the Venezuelan President Maduro, he refrained from issuing any direct political or legal condemnation of the American strike on Venezuela. This led to significant domestic controversy and criticisms, as some argued that the official French positions had fallen short of defending international legitimacy and international law, contrary to what was expected from France.
The right-wing Italian government, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, stood out by offering clear, explicit, and rare support, among Western European governments, in this case, for the American military attack on Venezuela. It considered the American military action legitimate and carried out in self-defence, which clearly reflected acceptance of the American framing and justification of the attack and an attempt to grant it legitimacy and a legal character.
As for the British and German positions, there appeared to be some similarities between them. British Labour Prime Minister “Keir Starmer” was keen to emphasize that Britain did not participate in any way in the American military attack on Venezuela and that his country upheld the primacy of international law. However, he explained that the facts were not sufficiently clear for Britain to adopt a definite position on what had occurred.
In a similar approach, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for a political settlement to the crisis in Venezuela, stressing the need to avoid escalation and to respect the principles and rules of international law. He noted, however, that the legal aspects of the American military operation against Venezuela appeared highly complex. Consequently, neither the British nor the German governments condemned the American attack.
If we move on to identifying the general features of these positions adopted by the major Western European countries and attempting to interpret them, it becomes necessary to point out several observations.
First, these Western European positions further deepen the crisis facing Western European governments among significant segments of public opinion and political and social forces within their own countries. This crisis originally emerged as a result of these governments’ positions on the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip since October 2023, as they were clearly accused of turning a blind eye to actions committed by the Israeli government and army that many within and outside Western Europe viewed as contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, and the United Nations Charter and its resolutions.
Second, these positions represent further exacerbation by adding new credibility, also following those governments’ stances on the Israeli war on Gaza, to accusations that major Western European governments apply double standards when dealing with similar international situations from the perspective of international legal qualifications. The primary comparison here, of course, is with the positions of these same governments regarding the Russian–Ukrainian war and their strict condemnation of Russia, including the imposition of sanctions against it.
Third, it is clear that Western European governments did not wish to adopt clear positions condemning the American military attack on Venezuela out of their desire not to create a new and additional point of disagreement with the current Republican U.S. administration led by President Donald Trump. This is the case because they are already at odds with U.S. policy regarding the Russian–Ukrainian war, which they see as exerting considerable pressure on the Ukrainian political leadership and demanding “concessions” that Western European governments consider excessive. They had hoped that Washington would exert similar pressure on Moscow and demand concessions from it. Accordingly, these governments do not wish to expand the scope of disagreement with the U.S. administration and may even seek to narrow it, in order to preserve the support and protection of their largest ally across the Atlantic.
Short link: