What Happens When the Seizure of Leaders Becomes Normalized

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Precedent Is How International Order Actually Changes

International law does not usually collapse through dramatic declarations.
It erodes through precedent.

What states tolerate once becomes easier to repeat.
What they tolerate twice becomes normal.
What becomes normal eventually stops being questioned at all.

The U.S. action in Venezuela matters not only for what was done, but for what it signals is now permissible.

The Seizure of Political Leadership Is a Red Line—for a Reason

For decades, even during proxy wars and covert conflicts, there has been a broadly respected boundary:
heads of state are not seized across borders under the guise of law enforcement.

That boundary exists because its removal destabilizes everything at once:

  • diplomacy loses meaning,
  • exile becomes irrelevant,
  • and negotiation collapses into fear.

Once leader seizure is normalized, politics shifts from persuasion to personal survival.

When One Power Breaks the Rule, Others Learn the Lesson

Precedent does not require moral approval.
It requires demonstrated survivability.

If a powerful state can:

  • use force without authorization,
  • seize foreign leadership,
  • and continue operating without serious consequence,

then every other state updates its risk calculations accordingly.

Not ideologically.
Practically.

The lesson absorbed is simple: the rule no longer protects you.

This Is How Global Stability Degrades

Precedent risk does not explode overnight. It spreads horizontally.

  • Regional rivals adopt harder security postures.
  • Diplomatic immunity weakens.
  • Political leaders increase personal security over public governance.
  • Negotiations become performative rather than substantive.

Trust does not vanish. It is replaced by contingency planning.

That is how arms races begin without announcements.

The Inevitable Copycat Problem

History shows that once a tactic is normalized, it is reused—often by actors less capable, less restrained, and more volatile.

What begins as “exceptional” behavior by a major power becomes justification for:

  • unilateral actions by regional powers,
  • extraterritorial operations framed as justice,
  • and retaliation framed as symmetry.

Precedent does not stay in the hands of its creator.

Why This Is Larger Than Venezuela

This episode is not confined to Latin America.

It affects:

  • how dissidents are treated abroad,
  • how exiled leaders are protected,
  • how international warrants are interpreted,
  • and how borders are respected under pressure.

Once the line blurs, no state can credibly insist it be redrawn when it becomes inconvenient.

Precedent Is Harder to Undo Than Policy

Policies can be reversed.
Precedents cannot.

Once a rule is broken without consequence, restoring it requires collective enforcement, not rhetoric. And collective enforcement becomes harder as trust decays.

That is why states historically defend norms even when they dislike the beneficiaries.

The cost of erosion is always paid later—and rarely by those who caused it.

Editorial Condemnation

WPS News condemns the normalization of precedent that allows the seizure of political leadership through unilateral force.

This is not a tactical issue.
It is a structural one.

If this action is allowed to stand without consequence, it will not remain exceptional. It will become reference.

And once reference becomes routine, international order ceases to be rule-based and becomes purely discretionary.

History has already shown how that ends.

APA Citations

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.

United Nations General Assembly. (1974). Resolution 3314 (XXIX): Definition of Aggression.

Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.