Kidnapping a president is not “Liberation.” It is a crime against civilization.
This is how states collapse—not how they are reformed.
Let me be absolutely clear: the kidnapping of a sitting head of state and his spouse is not resistance, not justice, and not democracy. It is organized criminality at the highest level. Anyone who excuses such an act abandons the rule of law and embraces political barbarism.
History has already judged this behavior. It has never judged it kindly.
Under international law, kidnapping a president is a direct attack on the sovereignty of a nation. The United Nations Charter leaves no room for clever justifications or ideological wordplay. Article 2(4) commands that “All Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Abduction is force. Period.
Those who would celebrate such a crime are not standing on moral high ground. They are standing in the shadow of some of the most destabilizing actions of the last century.
We Have Seen This Movie Before
Iran, 1953. Guatemala, 1954. Chile, 1973. Grenada, 1983. Libya, 2011.
Each case was sold to the public as a necessary intervention, a shortcut to freedom, a surgical strike against a “problem leader.” Each ended with shattered institutions, prolonged instability, and civilian suffering that far outlasted the propaganda slogans used to justify the initial crime.
In Iran, the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh did not bring democracy—it brought decades of authoritarian rule and regional blowback that still haunts the world. In Libya, the violent removal of Muammar Gaddafi fractured a state and turned it into a trafficking corridor, a failed nation, and a humanitarian disaster.
The lesson is obvious but routinely ignored: illegal force does not create legal outcomes.
Kidnapping Is Terrorism by Definition
The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages is explicit. Hostage-taking is a crime when someone is seized to coerce a government or political body. There is no exemption for “popular” kidnappers or fashionable causes.
Calling a kidnapping “liberation” does not change its nature. It merely reveals the moral emptiness of the argument.
If masked men can seize a president today because they dislike him, then masked men can seize diplomats, judges, journalists, and civilians tomorrow. This is how states collapse—not how they are reformed.
The Dangerous Lie of “Ends Justify the Means”
The most reckless voices are those who insist that extraordinary crimes are acceptable if the target is unpopular. That logic is not revolutionary. It is nihilistic.
If kidnapping a president is acceptable today, then assassination becomes acceptable tomorrow. If mercenaries are heroes now, then warlords will be celebrated next. This is not speculation. It is a historical fact.
The United Nations was created to prevent exactly this descent into lawlessness. Its founding mission is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Political abduction does the opposite—it accelerates conflict and invites retaliation.
A Red Line That Must Hold
This article does not defend Nicolás Maduro. It defends a global red line that separates law from chaos.
Kidnapping a head of state is a crime against international order. It must be condemned universally, prosecuted relentlessly, and rejected without euphemism. Silence or applause makes us all accomplices.
The choice is stark and unavoidable: law or jungle rules.
The United Nations has chosen law. And anyone who truly believes in peace, stability, and human dignity must choose it too—especially when emotions run high and restraint is hardest.
Because once kidnapping becomes policy, civilization is already in retreat.
