A Venezuela-style operation on the continent is unlikely, but South Africa is still concerned about United States international behaviour. However, a caution is raised regarding Africa's historical susceptibility to Washington-backed regime-change tactics.
“I don't foresee that the U.S. can execute a Venezuelan military style against South Africa,” according to political analyst and international relations expert Dr Gideon Chitanga.
In a risky operation that has infuriated people worldwide, U.S. military forces apprehended President Nicolás Maduro and his wife over the weekend and transported them to the U.S to face criminal charges.
He cited Libya as a warning example and stated that the U.S. has frequently used non-military means to weaken governments it does not support, such as economic pressure, political discrediting, and destabilisation. South Africa’s democratic legitimacy, he said, remains its strongest shield.
Pretoria and Washington have been trading barbed wire in recent months amid escalating foreign relations.
“The South African government is a legitimately elected government, so it's incumbent is not disputed,” Chitanga said, warning that any unilateral U.S. action in Africa would severely damage Washington’s standing.
“It would entirely discredit the U.S. as a serious government that at least upholds some semblance of international law,” he said.
Chitanga warns that economic pressure posed the biggest risk for Pretoria, even though the Venezuelan-military style seems implausible. He warns that Washington could use its financial clout to weaken the South African state, with dire repercussions for common people. He called the genocide narrative propagated by the United States against South Africa "reckless" and "destabilizing."
While experts acknowledge that years of economic mismanagement and repression have weakened Maduro's grip on power, they warn that no country has the legal right to kidnap a sitting head of state, and that such actions pose a serious threat to international law and global stability.
The operation, ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump over the weekend, reportedly included bombings in Caracas and other key cities, the detention of the Maduro couple, and a declaration by Washington that it would “run the country” temporarily. Trump further indicated that the U.S. would oversee a political transition while controlling Venezuela’s vast oil resources, a move critics describe as unprecedented and deeply destabilising.
The intervention has triggered fierce condemnation from political parties, labour unions, and international organisations, many of which have denounced the action as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and a breach of the United Nations Charter.
Another political commentator, Kenneth Mokgatlhe, a fellow at the Middle East African Research Institute, warned that the unfolding crisis signals a turbulent global period.
He said the situation in Venezuela reflects the dangerous intersection of authoritarian governance, economic collapse, and great-power interventionism.
“This will be a very long year in the world,” Mokgatlhe said.
He stressed that Maduro must shoulder responsibility for the crisis engulfing his country, arguing that years of policy failures alienated the population and fuelled internal resistance.
“The responsibility for the consequences Maduro now faces rests squarely on his own leadership and decisions,” Mokgatlhe said, citing “disastrous economic policies which positioned him against his own people.”
He added that many Venezuelans are celebrating Maduro’s removal after more than a decade of “repression and arrogance.”
Mokgatlhe placed the crisis within a broader historical framework, recalling the impact of U.S. sanctions imposed during Trump’s first presidency in 2017. He said those measures severely affected ordinary citizens and contributed to the mass displacement of Venezuelans across the globe. More than seven million people have since fled the country amid economic collapse and political instability.
On the criminal allegations facing Maduro, Mokgatlhe said the matter would now move into the legal arena, while cautioning that jurisdictional challenges were inevitable.
Mokgatlhe also drew parallels between the current events and earlier U.S. interventions in Latin America, suggesting that Washington’s approach follows a familiar pattern.
“For those who still remember what happened some 36 years ago, the then U.S President George H.W. Bush ordered an invasion of Panama, which led to the trial and imprisonment of General Manuel Noriega. History has a tendency to repeat itself, and I believe the same will happen to Maduro here,” he said.
He warned that the U.S. has repeatedly shown a willingness to act unilaterally in defence of its national interests, even when doing so places strain on international legal norms.
“Although this arrest of the sitting president sent shockwaves throughout the world, this is not the first time that it has happened, especially by the U.S. against Latin American countries concerning drug trafficking,” Mokgatlhe said.
He added that Venezuela’s geopolitical alliances would complicate the fallout from the arrest.
“Venezuela is a friend to China, Russia and Turkey, so the arrest of Maduro will certainly have political implications for the countries aligning themselves with Venezuela and Maduro,” he noted.
Mokgatlhe also sought to reassure the public that a similar military intervention was unlikely. He said South Africa does not pose a strategic or security threat to Washington and that existing tensions between Pretoria and Washington would more likely be managed through diplomatic channels.
Chitanga described the “midnight abduction” of Maduro as a grave international crisis.
He stressed that sitting heads of state enjoy immunity under international law and said the U.S. action amounted to a unilateral abuse of power, carried out without proper oversight.
“We are witnessing a very brazen violation of international law,” Chitanga said. “Otherwise, the world would be plunged into a jungle where powerful states can do as they please.”
He argued that the intervention was driven by regime-change ambitions and access to Venezuela’s oil, pointing to Trump’s public statements about U.S. companies exploiting Venezuelan resources and Washington’s intention to control the country.
“This is some form of imperial, colonial interest in the modern era,” he said, warning that such actions undermine multilateralism, diplomacy, and international cooperation.
Chitanga concluded that the abduction of Maduro and the use of force to secure oil resources represented a clear violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and risked destabilising the wider region.
Meanwhile, political parties, labour unions, and international groups have strongly condemned the U.S. military actions.
The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) described the intervention as “an undemocratic, dictatorial, and unilateral assault on Venezuela,” while the South African Communist Party (SACP) labelled it “criminal and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter.”
International voices, including the European Greens, also criticised the intervention, insisting that Venezuela’s future must be determined by its people through peaceful and democratic means.
The Star
masabata.mkwananzi@inl.co.za