Recent remarks by senior officials of the US administration about "controlling" Venezuela's oil business and dictating where its crude oil may be sold have laid bare a logic that runs counter to the basic norms of international relations. From public statements to media interviews, Washington has openly framed Venezuela's oil — the lifeline of its economy — as a lever to be seized, redirected and rationed according to US national interests, including explicit signals that sales to China would be barred unless approved by Washington.

US President Donald Trump claimed that Venezuela would be "turning over" tens of millions of barrels of "sanctioned oil" to the US, with cargoes originally bound for China rerouted to US ports. Vice-President JD Vance went further, stating bluntly that Washington can "control" Venezuela's energy resources and dictate where its oil may be sold in order to exert pressure, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio made clear that access to oil revenue would hinge on cooperation with the US. An unnamed senior US official summed it up starkly: Only oil flows "approved under US law and national security interests" would be allowed.

Such statements are an admission that the US seeks to place another sovereign country's natural resources under its own gatekeeping authority, using force, coercion and unilateral sanctions to compel compliance. This is not diplomacy, nor is it legitimate economic statecraft. It is a textbook display of hegemonic behavior that tramples on international law and the sovereign rights of states.

Venezuela is a sovereign nation with state sovereignty over its natural resources. This principle is a cornerstone of the postwar international order, enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law. The idea that any country — however powerful — can dictate whom another country trades with, or confiscate and redirect its resources at will, fundamentally violates these norms. In the case of Venezuela, the US' actions directly infringe upon the rights and interests of the Venezuelan people.

Also, the fact that Venezuela possesses significant, though largely unquantified, deposits of rare earth elements may be another unspoken factor behind recent US actions, especially given the US administration's announcement of breakthroughs in rare earth processing technology.

The illegality of Washington's actions goes even deeper. The reported use of force against Venezuela without UN authorization breaches Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It meets the criteria of aggression as defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. Attempts to control Venezuela's oil exports and seize its assets compound these violations by undermining the principle that states alone decide how their resources are developed and sold.

Nor are these actions on solid ground domestically within the US. Under the US Constitution, the power to authorize war rests with Congress, and the War Powers Resolution of the US requires notification and approval for overseas hostilities. That explains why the US administration has firmly denied its operation in Venezuela is an act of war, describing it as a "special law enforcement action". Acting without such authorization raises serious constitutional questions, as does the seizure of foreign state assets through domestic court rulings that deny due process and judicial remedies.

Against this backdrop, demands that Venezuela submit its economic ties with China and other countries to the control of the US, and cooperate exclusively with the US on oil production and any other sectors that the US deems necessary are particularly egregious. Cooperation between China and Venezuela is normal cooperation between two sovereign states, conducted in accordance with international law and market principles. China's lawful rights and interests in Venezuela must be respected and protected, not brushed aside by unilateral decrees or denied by coercion.

No matter which country infringes upon China's legitimate rights and interests, and by what means, it will be served accordingly.

What Washington is attempting to impose is not a solution to Venezuela's challenges but a return to a discredited pattern of might makes right. By treating oil as spoils to be seized and redistributed, the US shows scant regard for Venezuela's development needs or the well-being of its people. Such neocolonial practices have failed time and again, leaving behind instability, resentment and long-term damage to international trust.

The world today faces enough uncertainty without the added shock of openly proclaimed resource theft. Attempts to turn back the clock to an era of gunboat economics and enforced dependency will not succeed. They will only further erode the credibility of those who pursue them. Respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law and genuine cooperation remain the only viable foundations for peace, stability and development — in Venezuela and beyond.

The international community has both the responsibility and the means to hold violators accountable, whether through the United Nations, international courts or collective diplomatic actions.