In a world where power often dictates justice, the U.S. strike on Venezuela raises a critical question: Does might truly make right? This bold move by the United States, which included the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on charges of drug trafficking and terrorism, has sparked global debate and concern. But here's where it gets controversial: Could this action inadvertently embolden other global powers, like China, to assert their dominance in regions they claim as their own, such as Taiwan? Let's dive deeper into this complex issue.
On January 3, the U.S. executed a high-profile operation in Venezuela, a move that echoed the ancient Greek historian Thucydides' observation: 'The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.' The Maduro couple was swiftly transported to New York to face charges, an action that drew sharp criticism from foreign governments questioning the legality of the strike. This operation reignited a long-standing debate: Is the U.S. reverting to a world order where power trumps justice?
David Roche of Quantum Strategy warned on CNBC that this operation could weaken the U.S.'s moral high ground when criticizing similar actions by rivals. 'If Donald Trump can intervene in a sovereign nation and remove its leader, why is Putin's actions in Ukraine wrong, and why shouldn't China be entitled to take over Taiwan?' Roche asked. This question highlights a troubling inconsistency in global power dynamics.
The U.S. has recently asserted what it calls the 'Trump Corollary' in its National Security Strategy, a modern revival of the 1820s Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine established the U.S. as the dominant power in the 'Western Hemisphere,' a sphere of influence where it seeks to control political, military, and economic decisions without formal annexation. This concept is not new; it echoes the Roosevelt Corollary, which historically justified U.S. interventions in Latin America.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern, stating that the rules of international law had not been respected and that the events in Venezuela set a 'dangerous precedent.' Roche further cautioned that this action could have unintended consequences, creating a series of threats and permissions for autocratic regimes to seize territories beyond their current control.
And this is the part most people miss: While the world watches Venezuela, attention has shifted to Asia, particularly to Taiwan. China, which considers Taiwan part of its territory, has been increasing pressure on the island. In December, China conducted live-fire drills around Taiwan, framing them as a warning against foreign interference. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in his New Year's address, declared Taiwan's unification as 'unstoppable,' aligning with U.S. intelligence assessments that Beijing might attempt to seize the island by force within this decade.
However, Ryan Hass, a former U.S. diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, cautioned against drawing direct parallels between Venezuela and Taiwan. He argued that China's strategy toward Taiwan has been one of coercion short of violence, rather than direct military action. 'Beijing will focus on protecting its interests, condemning U.S. actions, and contrasting itself with the U.S. in the international system, rather than drawing inspiration from the Venezuela incident to change its Taiwan approach,' Hass wrote.
China's foreign ministry strongly condemned the U.S. strike, calling it a 'hegemonic act' and urging Washington to respect other countries' sovereignty and security. Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, noted that while the Trump administration is comfortable with great powers like China and Russia having spheres of influence, it does not mean Washington is okay with these countries expanding their reach. Papic also pointed out that the U.S. has not abandoned Taiwan, as evidenced by the $11 billion arms sale announced in December.
The U.S. lacks a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan but is committed under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to provide weapons necessary for Taiwan's self-defense. Evan Feigenbaum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argued that the U.S. would likely pursue its own sphere of influence while denying one to China. 'The U.S. will insist on an American sphere of influence in its hemisphere while trying to deny China one in Asia,' he wrote, adding, 'Let's not pretend the U.S. is consistent; hypocrisy in its foreign policy is undeniable.'
Papic emphasized that time is on China's side, and there's no immediate need for Beijing to act on Taiwan while the U.S. focuses on its 'Western Hemisphere.' 'Why risk uniting the Western world against China by attempting to reunify with Taiwan now, when time is likely on China's side over the next decade?' he asked.
But here's the real question for you: Is the U.S. strike on Venezuela a justified exercise of power, or does it set a dangerous precedent that could destabilize global norms? And what does this mean for Taiwan and China's ambitions? Share your thoughts in the comments—let's spark a thoughtful debate!
