Michael Higgins: Mark Carney can't decide whether removing Maduro was good or bad

The reaction to the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro roughly falls into two camps: those who celebrate the downfall of a corrupt narco-terrorist and those who condemn it as a suspected breach of international law.

Prime Minister Mark Carney chose a third option, a wishy-washy, bland statement that neither praised the detention on moral grounds nor criticized it on the basis it might be illegal.

The man who wrote the book on values appears to have difficulty sometimes in stating what those values are.

Such was Carney’s reluctance to take a stand on the issue that his statement on X at the weekend about the dramatic seizure of Maduro by U.S. special forces inside Venezuela didn’t even mention the event.

“One of the first actions taken by Canada’s new government in March 2025 was to impose additional sanctions on Nicolás Maduro’s brutally oppressive and criminal regime — unequivocally condemning his grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations, and corruption. Canada has not recognized the illegitimate regime of Maduro since it stole the 2018 election,” Carney said in the opening to his statement.

Which looks like a lengthy preamble by someone who is about to celebrate that the election-stealing, human-rights violating, corrupt despot has been toppled.

But no.

“The Canadian government therefore welcomes the opportunity for freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity for the Venezuelan people,” Carney continued.

Opportunity? What a curious word choice to encompass such a monumental event as the arrest, and imprisonment of a world leader taken in such a spectacular fashion.

And while the statement welcomes the incredible benefits that might flow from Maduro’s capture it singularly avoids any mention of it.

Perhaps Carney’s vacillation was a prelude to condemning the seizure as a breach of international law?

But no.

“Canada has long supported a peaceful, negotiated, and Venezuelan-led transition process that respects the democratic will of the Venezuelan people. In keeping with our long-standing commitment to upholding the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We stand by the Venezuelan people’s sovereign right to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society,” the statement went on.

The reason Canada has “long supported” such a position is that for the past 28 years under Maduro, and Hugo Chávez before him, the “democratic will” of the people has been usurped and ignored.

Carney may hope for a peaceful, negotiated transition, but it hasn’t happened in almost three decades and didn’t look as if it was on the near horizon until Donald Trump’s unexpected intervention.

And while it’s very nice to ask people to respect international law, the question that remains is: Does the prime minister believe the American president violated it?

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer pulled the same trick as Carney with his statement which at least had the benefit of condemning Maduro.

“We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime. I reiterated my support for international law this morning,” said Starmer on X.

Contrast Carney’s statement with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre who didn’t mince words when it came to stating his position.

“Congratulations to President Trump on successfully arresting narco-terrorist and socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, who should live out his days in prison,” said Poilievre on X.

“The legitimate winner of the most recent Venezuelan elections, Edmundo González, should take office along with the courageous hero and voice of the Venezuelan people, María Corina Machado. Down with socialism. Long live freedom.”

The problem for Carney is that he doesn’t want to offend Trump. Despite all the “elbows up” rhetoric, the prime minister knows that the American president will take any criticism personally, which could cause major problems for already rocky trade talks between the two countries.

Plus, a mandatory review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade begins this year and Carney will be keen to keep the president sweet.

However, Carney’s anodyne statement on the Maduro capture is making him look vapid and unprincipled.

The Maduro capture is a ground-shaking moment and the prime minister should have made a clear, unequivocal statement: support the Trump administration on moral grounds or call into question whether international laws had been broken.

Carney couldn’t do either, even discussing the capture was beyond him.

In the coming days the U.S. may well spell out more clearly the legal rationale for seizing Maduro. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already called the capture a law-enforcement operation and not an act of war.

Indeed, a lengthy indictment in New York accuses Maduro and his wife of working with terrorist groups like FARC to transport “thousands of tons of cocaine” into the United States to fuel a rich and powerful lifestyle.

But if there are questions to be asked about the operation, Carney is being careful to avoid them. And if there are reasons to celebrate, Carney’s not letting off the fireworks.

The prime minister may have wanted to appear diplomatic in his statement, but he ended up looking timid.

National Post