WILLEMSTAD – The Dutch government says it is closely monitoring developments in the Caribbean and Venezuela, but has so far stopped short of explicitly condemning the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela. The cautious stance highlights growing political and legal tensions in The Hague, particularly because of the proximity of the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom to Venezuela.
Caretaker Prime Minister Dick Schoof stated that the cabinet is following the situation “very closely,” yet avoided direct criticism of Washington. In contrast, incoming Prime Minister Rob Jetten was more outspoken, stating that the U.S. actions run counter to international law.
Caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs David van Weel emphasized in a statement on Saturday that the safety of Dutch citizens and the Kingdom of the Netherlands remains the highest priority. He reiterated that the Kingdom does not recognize the Maduro regime and continues to advocate for a swift return to democracy in Venezuela. At the same time, Van Weel called on all parties to avoid further escalation and to adhere to international law.
Divided political responses in The Hague
Foreign affairs spokespersons from the coalition-forming parties D66, VVD, and CDA initially responded in cautious terms. Later in the day, D66 leader Rob Jetten issued a more extensive statement, describing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as a “cruel dictator,” while simultaneously warning that the U.S. operation sets a dangerous precedent and clearly conflicts with international law.
VVD leader Dilan Yeşilgöz echoed concerns, writing on social media that the attack does not align with international law. However, she cautioned against both blindly condemning and blindly supporting the U.S. action, calling such positions short-sighted and unhelpful.
Emergency debate looming in Dutch Parliament
Although the Dutch Parliament is officially in recess until January 13, a majority appears ready to push for an emergency debate in the coming days. Left-wing parties are calling on the government to formally condemn the U.S. attacks. SP leader Jimmy Dijk wrote on X that President Trump is “bombing boats, drowning people, ports and now another country.”
Volt and the Party for the Animals have also demanded a tougher stance, while GroenLinks–PvdA leader Jesse Klaver labeled the operation an “illegal attack.” At the opposite end of the political spectrum, PVV leader Geert Wilders openly praised the U.S. action.
Caribbean proximity drives Dutch caution
According to Leiden University professor of war studies Frans Osinga, the Dutch government’s restrained response is unsurprising. “Because of the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom, which lie close to Venezuela, the Netherlands is forced to tread carefully,” he said. Osinga noted that this cautious approach has been visible for months, particularly during the U.S. military buildup in the region and earlier air and naval strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels.
On December 18, Van Weel avoided directly answering whether those U.S. strikes undermined international law, stating that they were U.S.-led national operations in international waters, justified by Washington as self-defense. The Dutch government said it could not independently assess whether self-defense applied and therefore could not determine whether the attacks, which reportedly resulted in more than 100 deaths, violated international law.
Both Van Weel and Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans stressed that the Netherlands has not contributed to these U.S. operations. They also warned that any threat to the Caribbean islands would more likely come from Venezuela, noting that the Netherlands is responsible for the defense of the islands and fears potential retaliation against what could be perceived as America’s closest regional ally.
Legal experts warn of erosion of international law
Now that the United States has entered Venezuela to detain President Maduro and his wife, the absence of a formal Dutch condemnation has drawn criticism from legal scholars. Osinga described the operation as “completely illegal, neo-imperialist behavior” that aligns with the new U.S. National Security Strategy. While he acknowledged that few would mourn Maduro’s departure, he warned that regime change often creates deeper instability, pointing to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as cautionary examples.
University of Amsterdam international criminal law expert Marieke de Hoon went further, calling the attacks a “crime of aggression.” She rejected claims of self-defense or law enforcement, stating that no credible international legal basis exists for the bombing of vessels or the arrest of a sitting head of state.
De Hoon argued that while the Netherlands faces a complex dilemma due to its Caribbean territories and reliance on U.S. support for Ukraine, it also has a special responsibility as a defender of the international legal order. “If norms are not reaffirmed, the international legal system erodes,” she warned, adding that smaller countries like the Netherlands depend heavily on that system for their security and economic stability.
For Curaçao and the wider Caribbean, the debate in The Hague underscores how global power politics and international law directly affect regional security, airspace stability, and daily life on the islands — even when decisions are made thousands of kilometers away.