OPINION | As the 'Don' runs riot in Venezuela, Western media reach for the dictionary

Nobody dare tell him what it really is

On Monday Nicolás Maduro stood in a New York courtroom and said, “I was kidnapped.” He was referring to a middle-of-the-night ‘raid’ by US special forces into his house. It was a reference to the removal of a sitting head of state and his wife from their home in Caracas. Many leaders and the media in the Global South appear to agree with Maduro.

The Language of Power

But much of the media in the US and the wider Western world avoided the word “kidnapping” like the plague. The word sounded uncomfortable. Instead, newspapers, wire services, television channels and digital platforms took refuge in safer language, describing the Saturday night operation as a “capture,” a “seizure,” or Maduro being “taken into custody.” These terms sound procedural, even lawful. So carefully was the reporting framed that the operation appeared almost unfortunate but necessary, with the killing of 24 Venezuelan security personnel treated as little more than collateral damage.

These reports were then reproduced by hundreds of thousands of media outlets outside the Western hemisphere, helping create the impression that the operation was routine, lawful and necessary, and that it was an action taken against a dictator allegedly involved in drug trafficking, much of the haul landing in the US.

An Uncomfortable Question

The question is, what do we call a unilateral, unprovoked military operation conducted inside a sovereign country against a sitting president, however unpopular he may be? To answer that, the action must be placed in context. The operation and the subsequent transfer of the president and his wife to American custody took place without authorisation from the United Nations and without approval from the US Congress. Despite these glaring omissions, many in the Western world, media and politicians included, have suggested that the legality of the act is somehow ambiguous.

What the Law Says About Words

In law and diplomacy, the choice of words is rarely accidental; it is jurisdictional. “Capture” has a specific meaning under international humanitarian law, referring to the lawful detention of enemy combatants during an armed conflict, as recognised in the Geneva Conventions and routinely invoked in UN-mandated wars, such as the detention of Iraqi soldiers by coalition forces during the 1991 Gulf War.

“Seizure” implies the exercise of recognised legal authority, typically carried out pursuant to a court order or international mandate, such as in UN-authorised asset seizures against sanctioned individuals under United Nations Security Council resolutions. By contrast, “abduction” and “kidnapping” denote criminality and illegality under both domestic and international law.

The words have been used by UN special rapporteurs to describe renditions carried out outside the legal process, including CIA extraordinary rendition cases documented in UN Human Rights Council reports in the early 2000s.

Sovereignty Does Not Depend on Popularity

When a head of state or government is forcibly removed from his home by a foreign power without a UN mandate, extradition process or congressional approval, international law offers little ambiguity about which category the act belongs to. In the US context, however, it is true that previous presidents have used force in a sovereign country without prior congressional approval. Some argue that if the president determines that a foreign country poses an immediate threat to US national security, he can act unilaterally.

Measured against these definitions, the American operation in Caracas fits uncomfortably, and some might say unmistakably, into the category the Western media is most reluctant to use. There was no declared armed conflict between the US and Venezuela, no UN mandate, no extradition request processed through Venezuelan courts and no congressional authorisation. There were no court summons issued by a US court.

Not a Defence of Maduro

Before being accused of siding with a dictator who allegedly ‘stole’ the 2024 election, it must be made clear that this is not a defence of Maduro. His record is grim. He presided over economic collapse, hyperinflation, mass migration and alleged electoral fraud. He also stands accused of resorting to arbitrary detentions and serious human rights abuses. Venezuela under his rule went from being an oil-rich regional heavyweight to a humanitarian cautionary tale. He may well have lost the 2024 election. None of this is in dispute.

But legitimacy, or the lack of it, does not erase sovereignty. International law is not applied according to moral preference or political convenience. Heads of state do not forfeit legal protection simply because they are unpopular.

Manufacturing Consent

Another noticeable aspect of Western media coverage was the framing of voices. News outlets prominently featured Venezuelan opposition figures welcoming Maduro’s removal and US officials and Republican congressmen justifying the operation as law enforcement. The effect was subtle but powerful: an illegal act was contextualised into acceptability. Opposition voices became stand-ins for legality. Moral outrage was redirected towards Maduro’s past sins. The spin does not have to be deliberate; it is in the system’s DNA.

When Semantics Become Strategy

If this was not enough, a large section of the Western media went a step further and called Maduro a “former” president or “ousted” or “deposed” leader. This despite the fact that Venezuela’s vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, a Maduro loyalist, was sworn in as interim president by the country’s parliament, notionally until the elected president returns. This semantic sleight of hand matters. Declaring someone “former” retroactively legitimises their removal. It masquerades as factual description.

Europe’s Quiet Discomfort

The political cowardice of Europe and the UK has been just as revealing. Faced with a clear-cut violation of sovereignty, EU and British leaders have carefully avoided condemnation. Instead, they have fallen back on familiar talking points about repression during the Maduro era, democratic backsliding and atrocities committed by him — all true, but beside the point.

Their discomfort appears to lie with the fact that President Trump was unusually transparent about American intentions: the capture of Venezuela’s oil reserves. Had he wrapped the operation in the usual liberal interventionist language — restoring democracy, defending human rights — the European establishment would likely have fallen into line. The seizure itself did not rattle them; the lack of varnish did.

Normalising the Unthinkable

This dynamic is already visible in Europe’s response to Trump’s repeated threats to seize Greenland. European leaders have pushed back rhetorically, yet few doubt their inability to stop him should words turn into action. One can already imagine how such an event would be covered by Western media.

By normalising language first, the media normalises outcomes later. When “kidnapping” becomes “capture,” and an elected president becomes “former,” journalism ceases to perform its function.

Maduro’s son, Venezuelan congressman Nicolás Maduro Guerra, warned: “If we normalise the kidnapping of a head of state, no country is safe.” That statement barely registered in Western coverage. “Normalising” is an inconvenient word.

In three decades of experience with Western media, I have observed that when illegal acts are committed by Western powers, the media often becomes an accomplice — not through falsehoods, but through language. The illegal act is made to look lawful. The 2003 invasion of Iraq offers a cautionary precedent. Western media amplified claims about weapons of mass destruction. Thousands died, a country was devastated, and no such weapons were found. Yet the reckoning never truly came — perhaps because the pattern continues.

(Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.)