The Monroe Doctrine has fully been enforced by the Trump administration after threats directed towards the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, who was captured during a U.S. operation and brought back to the United States to face charges of narco-terrorism. Most countries have voiced their concern and opposition to such a move, but none have shown that they are willing to act in any meaningful way to counter the United States. Therefore, the Trump administration has shown once again that power hegemony enacted with brute force and state-of-the-art technology wins over diplomacy and “international law.”
However, the concept of international law is hard to codify, especially with all the international incidents ranging from recent situations such as Gaza and the Russian war in Ukraine. There is also a question regarding the concept of a unipolar or multipolar world, especially as in recent years Russia and China have both stressed their status as superpowers with their own extraordinary influence. It is hard to argue for a multipolar world when the United States is able to easily act against a country that has, in recent years, been a close ally of both Russia and China.
This opinion of American ultimate strength is being trumpeted by those in the current administration and its supporters, and even by some opponents across the world. However, it must be stressed that this question is much more complex and cannot be simply answered. China and Russia both recognise one thing: acting in accordance with national interests. This is clear in Russia’s view on Ukraine and China’s view on Taiwan. They, of course, oppose U.S. actions because they undermine both Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere, although it is yet to be seen by how much. However, it has highlighted a weakness, or a lack of will, to truly put their weight behind some of their allies in the region.
China and Russia have other priorities. Russia is determined to come out favourably in Ukraine, and China is continuously pushing its advancement toward taking Taiwan, land that it views as a breakaway province. The capture of Maduro does not guarantee any change in the region or the country itself, especially as the party and system that Maduro led remain in place and the military seemingly remains loyal. The Trump administration has already threatened the former vice president, now acting president, with further action if she does not make the changes the administration deems acceptable.
This is especially concerning the country’s oil resources, which the United States views as stolen property following Venezuela’s nationalisation of an industry largely operated by U.S.-based firms. This is obviously a key factor, but the United States is also operating under the Monroe Doctrine, which determines that it will retain ultimate influence in the region much like some Eurasianists in Russia propose a Eurasian sphere of influence dominated by Russia. The Maduro government is viewed as a hostile actor allied with foreign rivals such as Russia, China, and Iran, and therefore cannot be allowed to remain as a springboard for the spread of rival influence in the region.
This is clear power politics and geopolitics, where international law is little more than a platitude. In great power politics of this sort, strong powers will always act in their own interests regardless of outside views. In short, those outside views do not matter and will not change outcomes.
Many observers state that this sort of action by the United States effectively greenlights Chinese action toward Taiwan. However, this is a simplistic argument and reflects a shallow, clickbait mindset. In reality, China and other great powers do not seek approval from the international community for their actions, although justification can be useful. China has its own timeline and operates according to its own logic; the situation in Venezuela does not act as a greenlight, although it may serve as an additional tool in geopolitical whataboutism.
This same argument has been made regarding Russia’s actions. As already demonstrated, Russia acts in its own interests regardless of cost. It does not seek approval from states it perceives as hostile rivals, a fact highlighted by its operations in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. No country has been willing to place troops in Ukraine to fight Russia directly, which brings forward the further concept of nuclear weapons and their deterrence factor.
It has been emphasised during the Venezuelan situation that, had the country possessed stronger deterrence, the United States would not have been able to carry out the operation that occurred. This was also noted by Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, in regard to Saddam Hussein and the military operation that toppled his government. It is also important to note that this is why it has been so important for North Korea to further its quest for nuclear weapons and to weather the international fallout surrounding them.
This nuclear deterrent prevented both the Soviet Union and the United States from engaging in open combat during the 20th century through the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Many are noting the importance of a nuclear deterrent for defence, and it has been Iran’s goal for many years. This could potentially set an even stronger trend of smaller nations, particularly those hostile toward great powers such as the United States, seeking nuclear weapons covertly.
Only time will tell how effective the United States operation has been and what further consequences will come of it.
BakuTiflis 