Global South and hypocrisy: Why is Anwar silent on US violations in Venezuela?

Malaysia has repeatedly condemned Israel’s genocide in Gaza, invoked international law, defended civilian protection, and framed its foreign policy as one anchored in justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law.

Yet this moral clarity throws into sharp relief a troubling inconsistency. 

While Putrajaya speaks forcefully for Palestine, it remains conspicuously silent on another flagrant breach of international law: the US’ seizure of vessels and military attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela, actions that directly undermine Venezuelan sovereignty and violate long-established principles of maritime and international law.

The US interdictions and reported bombings of vessels in the Caribbean cannot be dismissed as routine law-enforcement actions. They raise serious legal concerns under multiple international instruments:

UN Charter, Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Military strikes on vessels linked to Venezuela — absent UN Security Council authorisation or a lawful claim of self-defence — fall squarely within this prohibition.

UN Charter, Article 51 permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack. Drug trafficking, even if proven, does not constitute an armed attack justifying unilateral military force against another sovereign state.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 87 guarantees freedom of navigation on the high seas. Article 92 affirms that ships on the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state, except in narrowly defined circumstances. Article 110 allows the right of visit only for piracy, slave trade, unauthorised broadcasting, or stateless vessels — not for unilateral sanctions enforcement. Unilateral seizures of vessels flying foreign flags, without flag-state consent or UN mandate, are therefore prima facie illegal.

Codified in UN General Assembly resolutions, including Resolution 2625 (Declaration on Friendly Relations), which explicitly prohibits coercive measures that infringe upon a state’s sovereign rights. By any reasonable legal standard, these actions amount to coercive intervention — if not outright piracy.

Several states have publicly criticised the US actions as violations of international law. Venezuela has announced its intention to raise the matter at the UN. 

Yet from Wisma Putra, there has been no statement invoking the UN Charter, no reference to UNCLOS, no defence of sovereignty, and no expression of concern for civilian lives at sea.

This silence is striking, especially given Malaysia’s frequent and correct invocation of international law in relation to Palestine. 

Malaysia cannot credibly claim to uphold a rules-based international order while selectively applying the rules. The same principles must apply in the Caribbean. International law does not change depending on whether the violator is Israel or the United States.

Malaysia’s reluctance to speak when Washington is the aggressor reveals a deeper problem: moral courage evaporates when power is involved. 

Condemning Israel carries little strategic cost. Condemning US imperial overreach, however, risks diplomatic discomfort. 

A foreign policy guided by convenience rather than principle is not moral leadership; it is selective outrage.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has spoken eloquently about restoring Malaysia’s ethical standing in world affairs. That vision now faces a defining test. 

The Global South does not need more rhetoric. It needs consistency. History will not judge Malaysia by how loudly it spoke where it was safe, but by whether it spoke when it was inconvenient.

Kua Kia Soong is a former MP and director of human rights group Suaram.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow.