The Mufti of Oman condemned the world’s silence over events in Venezuela

A sharp statement by the Mufti of Oman, Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili, on the situation around Venezuela reflects growing dissatisfaction with the silence of international organizations amid a sharp escalation around the country. His words sounded not as a theological reflection, but as a political accusation directed at global institutions tasked with protecting human rights and state sovereignty.

The Mufti stressed that the lack of reaction from the United Nations and other international bodies indicates a decline in universal human values. According to him, what is happening in Venezuela increasingly resembles a “law of the jungle”, where the strong impose their will and the weak remain without any protection.

The context gives this statement particular weight. In recent weeks, the Venezuelan crisis has moved beyond diplomatic pressure and sanctions policy, touching on issues of the direct use of force and interference in the internal affairs of a state. Despite this, international mechanisms of collective response have so far not been fully activated.

Al-Khalili’s criticism reflects broader frustration among countries and societies outside the Western political core. For them, the silence of international institutions appears not as neutrality, but as selective blindness, in which the principles of international law are applied inconsistently, depending on political circumstances.

A distinctive feature of the Mufti’s statement is its universal nature. He did not appeal to religious solidarity or regional interests, but spoke about human rights and basic norms of justice. This underscores that criticism of international inaction goes beyond inter-state conflicts and touches on the moral legitimacy of the global system.

The consequences of such rhetoric may be long-term. The more often influential religious and public figures publicly question the role of international organizations, the more trust in existing mechanisms of global governance is undermined. In the case of Venezuela, this strengthens the perception that the international system is unable to respond to crises when they affect the interests of powerful actors.

At the same time, it remains an open question whether such statements will lead to practical actions. For now, they serve as moral pressure and a fixation of position, without being accompanied by institutional steps. Nevertheless, the very fact of public criticism by an authoritative religious leader shows that the Venezuelan crisis is perceived not only as a regional problem, but also as a symptom of a deeper crisis in the international order.