Imagine a world where the powerful do what they want, and the weak have no choice but to accept it. Sounds like something out of ancient history, right? But recent events have some experts wondering if we're heading back to those days. On January 3rd, the United States took dramatic action, launching strikes in Venezuela and arresting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in what some are calling a 'lightning raid.'
The couple was swiftly transported to New York to face serious charges of drug trafficking and terrorism. This bold move immediately sparked an international outcry, raising critical questions about the legality and justification of the U.S. action. But here's where it gets controversial: could this action set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening other powerful nations to act with impunity?
David Roche of Quantum Strategy, in an interview with CNBC, suggested the operation might undermine the U.S.'s ability to criticize similar actions by other countries. He posed a pointed question: "If Donald Trump can walk into a country and take it over… then why is Putin wrong about Ukraine, and why is China not entitled to take over Taiwan?"
This concern is further fueled by the U.S.'s recently released National Security Strategy, which some interpret as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine, dating back to the 1820s, essentially asserted U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere, establishing a sphere of influence. A sphere of influence, for those unfamiliar, is a region where a powerful nation exerts significant political, military, or economic control without formally annexing the territory. Think of it as a country calling the shots without officially owning the place.
This echoes the earlier Roosevelt Corollary, which historically justified U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs. The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, issued a statement expressing "deep concern that the rules of international law have not been respected," labeling the events in Venezuela a "dangerous precedent." And this is the part most people miss: the long-term implications of such actions on the global stage.
Roche warned that the U.S. action could backfire, creating both threats and permissions. "On one hand, you've created a series of threats, and on the other, you've created a series of permissions to every dictatorial, autocratic regime, who wants to act to take over territory which is not currently within its ambit."
The Taiwan Question:
Naturally, these events have turned attention to Asia, specifically to the question of Taiwan. Could China, seeing the U.S. action in Venezuela, feel emboldened to ramp up pressure on Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province that must eventually be reunified with the mainland?
China has already been conducting live-fire drills around Taiwan, framing them as a warning against foreign interference. In his New Year's address, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared Taiwan's unification "unstoppable," echoing U.S. intelligence assessments that Beijing might attempt to seize the island by force within the current decade.
But here's where the experts diverge. Ryan Hass, a former U.S. diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, urges caution against drawing direct parallels between Venezuela and Taiwan. "There will be an impulse among foreign policy analysts to draw analogies to Taiwan and to warn about Trump setting a precedent Beijing could use against Taiwan. I would caution against that impulse," he wrote on X.
Hass argues that China's restraint in not using direct military force against Taiwan isn't necessarily due to respect for international law. Instead, he believes China is pursuing a strategy of coercion that falls short of outright violence. This strategy includes economic pressure, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns, all aimed at isolating Taiwan and weakening its resolve.
"Beijing will be more focused on protecting its interests, condemning US actions, and sharpening the contrast with the US in the international system than it will be on drawing inspiration from today's events to alter its approach on Taiwan," Hass wrote. In other words, China is more likely to use the situation to criticize the U.S. on the world stage than to immediately launch an invasion of Taiwan.
China's foreign ministry issued a statement expressing being "deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.'s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president." Beijing denounced the strike as a "hegemonic act" and demanded that Washington "stop violating other countries' sovereignty and security."
Marko Papic, chief strategist of macro-geopolitics at BCA Research, suggests that the Trump administration is more accepting of great powers having spheres of influence than previous administrations. "The Trump administration, more so than any American administration in recent memory, is comfortable with great powers like China and Russia having a sphere of influence," he stated.
However, Papic clarifies that this doesn't mean Washington is okay with these countries expanding their orbits unchecked. He points to the $11 billion arms sale to Taiwan announced in December as evidence that the U.S. hasn't abandoned the island. It's a delicate balancing act: acknowledging spheres of influence while still deterring aggression.
While the U.S. doesn't have a formal mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits Washington to providing Taiwan with the weapons it needs for self-defense. This act is a cornerstone of U.S. policy towards Taiwan, ensuring the island has the means to resist potential Chinese aggression.
Rules for Thee, Not for Me?
Evan Feigenbaum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that the U.S. is likely to pursue its own sphere of influence while simultaneously denying one to China. This is a classic example of what some might call hypocrisy in international relations.
"The United States is NOT going to 'consent' to a Chinese sphere of influence in Asia," Feigenbaum wrote on X. "Instead, I suspect it will attempt to insist on an American sphere of influence in its own Hemisphere while trying to deny one to China in Asia." He bluntly adds, "Let's not pretend the U.S. is consistent and that contradiction and hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy aren't a thing."
BCA Research's Papic believes that time is on China's side, suggesting that Beijing doesn't need to rush its plans for Taiwan. He argues that the U.S. is likely to remain focused on its own "Western Hemisphere," giving China more room to maneuver in the long run.
"Why risk getting the entire Western world to unite against [China] by effectively trying to militarily reunify with Taiwan in January of 2026? Why risk it when time is likely on China's side over the next 10 years, as the U.S. continues to focus on the near abroad, and less so on the entire world."
So, what do you think? Does the U.S. action in Venezuela set a dangerous precedent? Will it embolden China to accelerate its plans for Taiwan, or will Beijing take a more cautious approach? Is it hypocritical for the U.S. to pursue its own sphere of influence while denying one to China? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. This is a complex issue with no easy answers, and your perspective is valuable to the discussion.
