2026 began in the same way 1990 did: with an illegal intervention and the subsequent abduction of a Latin American political leader by the United States of America on January 3. The ongoing situation in Venezuela has not only brought a variety of strongly conflicting emotions among its nationals and the global population, but it has also reawakened sentiments that Latin America knows too well.

Clear similarities can be drawn between the 1989 United States’ invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Antonio Noriega and the recent abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. Both illegal interventions aimed at removing the de facto leadership and extraditing them to the United States to face ‘American justice’. Despite what is claimed by leadership in the United States’, its entitlement to act is not based on law, but rather on a precedent that they cemented decades ago in the region, including in Panama.

Having gained sovereignty after its separation from Gran Colombia in 1903, Panama became heavily dependent on the United States, which was an avid advocate for Panama’s independence and the construction of a maritime waterway that connected the Atlantic and the Pacific. Merely 15 days after Panama’s separation, the United States signed a treaty with its newly established ally, in which it gained a 16km-wide strip of land along the area of the Panama Canal. A decade later, in 1914, upon the culmination of the construction of the Panama Canal, the United States was more present than ever in the country.

Over the years, both states identified benefits in mutual dependency, which created temporal stability in Panama. For the United States, Noriega was a key figure, since he cooperated with the US Drug Enforcement Agency as an essential whistleblower. The relations turned sour, nevertheless, when Noriega was accused of using his position of power to smuggle drugs into the United States, leading to his formal indictment. After months of increasing tensions, the United States invaded Panama in the early hours of December 20, 1989, killing hundreds of Panamanian civilians and capturing Noriega on January 3, 1990.

To justify such military action, George H.W. Bush publicly expressed that the invasion of Panama had the purpose “to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug-trafficking and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaties.” It was an express admission that combating drug-trafficking was only one of the considerations for the invasion. Evidently, the United States felt entitled to defend democracy in Panama, making the invasion not just a simple military act of aggression, but also turning it into a paradoxical example of the reinstatement of democracy by force.

Before the United Nations Security Council, the United States argued that its actions were legally based on the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Even beyond legal justifications, and in attempt to gain moral ground before the international community, on December 23, Thomas Pickering, permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations, stated that the “United States action in Panama ha[d] been approved, applauded and welcomed by the democratically elected Government of Panama and by the overwhelming majority of the people of Panama.”

His statement sought to portray a level of heroism and appeal to a global community for an understanding of US actions as moral justice. The applauses Pickering spoke about, however, could not justify an illegal military intervention. They did not have the capacity to supersede Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. After all, it continued to be an unauthorized use of force to install democracy, which is not only violative of international law, but also directly incompatible with the principle of sovereignty, without which a democracy is only an illusion.

This was the logic that characterized Colombia’s intervention at the Security Council on the same meeting, energetically deploring the invasion and recalling that condemnation of such an illegal act does not interfere with its ability to continue promoting initiatives toward the restoration of democracy. It was this understanding of the situation that guided Colombia in sponsoring draft resolution S/21048, which, despite not having passed, codified those core ideas that remain true, relevant, and applicable today. Indeed, one can reaffirm a compromise with sovereignty and self-determination by condemning the abduction of a tyrant and simultaneously deplore the injustices that such tyrant has long gotten away with.

The United States’ justification for its abduction of Maduro is not much different than it was in 1989. Relying once more on self-defense, it claims the right to protect its population from drug-trafficking. Regarding the restoration of democracy, the United States has refrained from advocating for the handover of power to those who won the 2024 Venezuelan elections, unlike it did in post-invasion Panama. Instead, Trump has proclaimed himself  “acting President of Venezuela” while strategically warning Delcy Rodríguez that her tenure depends on her compliance with US demands. 

Its actions are no less illegal than the invasion of Panama, and equally (if not more strongly) condemned at the Security Council. Perhaps unsurprisingly,  Panama, which currently serves its two-year term as a Security Council member, joined others in regretting the breach of international law. In doing so, nonetheless, it was careful to also underscore its repudiation of Maduro’s regime and the consequences it has brought for Panama in particular.

However, any opinion of the regime should be immaterial to these considerations. Moral justifications cannot take precedence over legal obligations, even if the action in question achieves a short-term socially desirable outcome at face value. It is undeniable Maduro’s leadership brought countless perils to Venezuela. An abundance of reports and investigations by international organizations and NGOs detail the ways in which the regime violated human rights daily, for many years. These unjustified violations of human rights, nonetheless, should never be used as arguments to justify an illegal intervention that hides behind a deceptive curtain of goodwill and solidarity with the Venezuelan people.

1989 Panama tells Venezuela that the path towards justice and democracy, when reinstated by force, is not linear. It is, instead, a historically bitter process that, despite its gaps and inconsistencies, will most likely lead to a new degree of stability. Such stability, nevertheless, will remain subordinated to those who claim responsibility for the country’s liberation. They will, eventually, also feel responsible for the country’s successes and feel entitled to take back the country’s sovereignty whenever they please. As a result, the United States will always retain a position of leverage, whether over the Panama Canal or Venezuelan oil.

Those who rejoice at the image of an incarcerated Maduro hope this moment in history symbolizes the first step toward justice and a peaceful transition to a functioning democracy. Yet, how is the abduction of Maduro any different from what Venezuelans themselves have been through? Is that truly the justice the country needs or the transition it has yearned for, especially when the United States has ensured that there is no regime change? What is freedom, anyway, if it comes at the expense of sovereignty?

1989 Panama, finally, tells 2026 Venezuela that history does repeat itself in the most absurd ways.