When a prominent academic defends one of the world’s most notorious dictators in the name of “international law,” it reveals far more about America’s political landscape than Venezuela’s crisis.
Story Highlights
- Scholar condemns Maduro’s removal as violation of international sovereignty principles
- Venezuela faces severe humanitarian crisis with over 7 million citizens fleeing the country
- Geopolitical divide sees Russia and China supporting Maduro while US and allies oppose him
- Academic position sparks intense debate about intervention versus humanitarian responsibility
The Academic Defense of a Dictator
Mahmood Mamdani has emerged as an unexpected defender of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, framing any attempt to remove the embattled leader as a violation of international law. This academic positioning comes as Venezuela continues spiraling through one of the worst humanitarian crises in Latin American history, with its economy having contracted by approximately 75% since Maduro assumed power in 2013.
Mamdani’s stance reflects a broader intellectual tradition that prioritizes national sovereignty over humanitarian intervention, regardless of a regime’s treatment of its own people. This perspective draws heavily from historical examples of US interventions in Latin America, from Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, arguing that external interference inevitably produces worse outcomes than allowing domestic political processes to unfold naturally.
Venezuela’s Undeniable Human Catastrophe
The facts on the ground in Venezuela tell a devastating story that challenges purely legalistic approaches to international relations. Over 7 million Venezuelans have fled their homeland, representing approximately 25% of the country’s population. Hyperinflation exceeded 1,000,000% cumulatively during the worst periods, while oil production collapsed from 3 million barrels per day to under 500,000.
UN human rights investigators have documented systematic violations by Maduro’s government, including arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings. The healthcare system has collapsed, leading to the resurgence of diseases like malaria and measles that were previously controlled. Yet despite this humanitarian catastrophe, Mamdani and other anti-interventionist scholars maintain that international law prohibits external action to address these crises.
The Geopolitical Chess Game
Mamdani’s position aligns conveniently with the interests of America’s primary global competitors. Russia and China have provided crucial diplomatic and economic support to Maduro, using Venezuela as a strategic foothold in Latin America. This support isn’t motivated by concern for international law principles, but rather by cold geopolitical calculations about weakening US influence in its traditional sphere of influence.
Commie Mamdani Condemns Ouster of Maduro As Violation of 'International Law' https://t.co/WfXPs0sGpr
— DLW 🔥#MAGA (@Dlw20161950) January 3, 2026
The academic framing of sovereignty versus intervention obscures the reality that major powers consistently ignore international law when it suits their interests. Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, China’s militarization of the South China Sea, and numerous other examples demonstrate that appeals to international law often serve as convenient rhetorical shields for defending indefensible regimes. When American academics echo these talking points, they effectively provide intellectual cover for authoritarian powers.
Common Sense Versus Academic Theory
The disconnect between academic theory and practical reality becomes stark when considering Venezuela’s neighbors. Colombia has absorbed over 2.5 million Venezuelan refugees, straining its resources and creating significant security challenges along the border. Peru, Ecuador, and other regional nations face similar pressures from mass migration driven by Maduro’s failures.
Conservative principles emphasize both respect for sovereignty and recognition of evil when it clearly manifests. Maduro’s regime represents a clear case where ideological blindness prevents acknowledging obvious tyranny. The academic left’s reflexive anti-Americanism leads to defending dictators simply because they oppose US interests, regardless of how they treat their own people or regional stability.
Sources:
Zohran Mamdani denounces the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. r/latestagecapitalism reacts
