POLITICAL

 

Venezuela, the United States, and Selective Outrage: Why Is Rauff Hakeem Raising His Voice Now?

Colombo, January 6 — Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader and Member of Parliament Rauff Hakeem has issued a strongly worded statement condemning what he describes as illegal American actions against Venezuela, declaring that no country—regardless of size or power—has the right to violate international law or the United Nations Charter.

On the surface, the statement appears rooted in principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and global legal order. Yet Hakeem’s sudden and emphatic intervention on Venezuela has prompted a wave of political and diplomatic questions in Colombo—questions not about Venezuela alone, but about motivation, consistency, and political intent.

Is this a principled stand grounded in international law?
Or is it a political stunt designed for domestic consumption, particularly at a time when global geopolitics is being selectively repackaged for local political gain?

What Hakeem Actually Said

In his media release issued on Tuesday (6), Hakeem stated that international law does not permit irredentism, forced regime change, or military intervention, and accused the United States—specifically under the Trump administration—of engaging in illegal military incursions and the alleged arrest and detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

He warned that threats of military action and coercive measures against countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other regions undermine global stability and violate the UN Charter, which was established to prevent another world war.

Hakeem further argued that:

• No state has the right to seize another country’s resources

• Natural resources belong exclusively to sovereign states

• Aggressive foreign policy, regime-change strategies, and geopolitical adventurism erode the post–World War II international order

He called on the international community to act collectively to restrain unilateral provocations that threaten global peace and security.

The Immediate Question: Why Venezuela?

The first and most obvious question raised by political observers is why Venezuela—and why now?

Sri Lanka has no direct diplomatic, economic, or strategic stake in Venezuela. The SLMC has no established ideological alignment with Latin American politics. Nor has Hakeem historically been vocal on similar international crises involving far greater humanitarian consequences.

Why, then, has the SLMC leader chosen Venezuela as the stage for a high-profile denunciation of the United States?

What Does Rauff Hakeem Know About the Maduro Case?

A more specific question relates to legal accuracy.

Hakeem’s statement makes sweeping claims about the alleged arrest and detention of President Nicolás Maduro. Yet internationally, Maduro remains a deeply controversial figure, facing multiple criminal indictments filed by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in New York courts, including charges related to narcotics trafficking and organised crime networks.

These indictments—filed years ago—accuse senior Venezuelan officials of facilitating drug trafficking operations. Whether one agrees with the U.S. legal approach or not, these are formal judicial filings, not ad hoc political statements.

Has Rauff Hakeem examined these indictments?
Does he dispute their legal basis?
Or is his statement deliberately silent on the charges in order to present a simplified narrative of “imperial aggression”?

International law scholars note that criticising U.S. foreign policy does not require ignoring criminal allegations filed through legal processes, even if those processes themselves are contested.

Selective Anti-Americanism?

Another question gaining traction is whether Hakeem’s rhetoric amounts to selective anti-Americanism, carefully calibrated for political optics rather than grounded in consistent principle.

Critics point out an apparent contradiction:

• Hakeem publicly condemns U.S. actions abroad

• Yet he is known to maintain cordial relations with the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, including frequent visits and engagements

If U.S. actions are so fundamentally illegal and immoral, observers ask, why has Hakeem never staged a protest outside the U.S. Embassy?

This question becomes sharper in light of recent events.

Why Didn’t Hakeem Protest When Others Did?

During previous demonstrations by NPP leaders and activists, protests were openly staged against U.S. foreign policy positions, including outside diplomatic missions.

Where was Rauff Hakeem then?

Why did the SLMC leader not stand alongside those protests if his convictions against American interventionism are as strong as his statement suggests?

Political analysts argue that true principle is consistent, not episodic.

Is Hakeem Speaking for Muslims—or Using Them?

Perhaps the most sensitive question is whether Hakeem’s statement is aimed at mobilising Sri Lankan Muslim sentiment against the United States for domestic political benefit.

Sri Lankan Muslims have, in recent years, endured:

• Mass detentions under emergency laws after the Easter Sunday attacks

• Surveillance, profiling, and prolonged investigations

• Social stigmatisation and economic fallout

Many in the community still bear the scars of those policies—some of which were backed, directly or indirectly, by international counterterrorism frameworks championed by Western governments.

Yet when thousands of Muslims were detained without charge, where was this same level of moral outrage from Hakeem on the global stage?

If Hakeem is genuinely concerned about international law and human rights, critics ask, why were those principles not articulated with equal force when his own community was suffering under emergency regulations?

Political Timing and Domestic Calculations

The timing of the statement has also raised eyebrows.

Sri Lanka’s political landscape is shifting, with the NPP government asserting a new ideological posture on sovereignty, governance, and foreign policy. Anti-imperialist rhetoric now resonates differently in public discourse.

Is Hakeem attempting to reposition himself politically by echoing global south rhetoric at a time when such language is gaining traction?

Is this an effort to remain relevant in a changing political environment, rather than a reflection of long-held convictions?

International Law: Principle or Performance?

There is little disagreement with Hakeem’s core assertion that international law and the UN Charter matter. The prohibition against aggression, regime change, and resource seizure is well established.

The issue is not the principle—but the selective performance of principle.

International law applies:

• To the United States

• To Russia

• To China

• To Iran

• To Israel

• And to smaller states alike

Yet Hakeem’s record shows no comparable condemnations of other global powers when similar violations are alleged.

Why the singular focus on Washington?

Venezuela as a Symbol, Not a Policy

Foreign policy analysts note that Venezuela has increasingly become a symbolic proxy in global politics—used by politicians worldwide to signal ideological alignment rather than to engage in nuanced legal debate.

By invoking Venezuela, Hakeem may be speaking less about Latin America and more about Sri Lanka’s internal political theatre.

Credibility and Consistency

In politics, credibility is built not on eloquence but on consistency.

If Rauff Hakeem wishes to position himself as a defender of:

• International law

• Sovereignty

• Human rights

• Non-intervention

then those values must be applied universally, including:

• When the United States acts

• When other powers act

• When minority communities in Sri Lanka are affected

• When protests occur on Sri Lankan streets

Without that consistency, critics argue, statements risk being dismissed as performative diplomacy rather than principled politics.

Questions That Demand Answers

Rauff Hakeem’s condemnation of U.S. actions in Venezuela raises legitimate issues about international law. But it also raises unavoidable questions:

• What does he know about the legal charges against Nicolás Maduro?

• Why Venezuela, and why now?

• Is this a principled stand or a calculated political message?

• Is he attempting to push Sri Lankan Muslims into an anti-U.S. posture for domestic gain?

• Why has he never protested U.S. actions in Colombo when others have?

• How does he reconcile his rhetoric with his ongoing engagement with the U.S. Embassy?

Until these questions are addressed openly, Hakeem’s statement will continue to be read not merely as a foreign policy critique, but as a political intervention shaped as much by local ambition as by global concern.

In a world where international law is increasingly invoked selectively, Sri Lanka’s leaders—across party lines—will be judged not by the loudness of their declarations, but by the honesty and consistency with which they apply the principles they claim to defend.