With the strike on Venezuela, the US joins Russia and China in carving up the globe into spheres of influence
By Katie Stallard
New Statesman’
In his final hours in charge of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro was at the presidential palace in Caracas meeting with China’s special envoy Qiu Xiaoqi. Maduro did not look like a man who understood that his time was running out. He joked with the Chinese delegation about his zodiac sign – a tiger – wished them a happy new year and repeated the usual diplomatic pablum about his commitment to their strategic relationship and shared vision of “building a multipolar world of development and peace”.
That night, around 2 am, the United States launched its assault. Video footage posted on social media showed large explosions in the capital and at nearby military facilities. American military helicopters flew low over Caracas, firing at targets on the ground. Shortly afterwards, Donald Trump announced that the US had captured Maduro, along with his wife Cilia Flores, and flown them out of the country. Qiu was almost certainly the last foreign diplomat to see Maduro in power. It is not clear if the Chinese diplomats were still in Caracas during the US attack.
The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. Trump is said to have given the order to strike Venezuela and capture Maduro days ago, but weather conditions and military planning delayed the operation until now. Yet there is a symbolic resonance to the images of Maduro meeting the Chinese envoy as the last act of his presidency and the prelude to the new world order Trump seems determined to bomb into existence.
On the face of it, Trump’s rationale for attacking Venezuela is nonsensical. Maduro was indicted in the US on charges of corruption and drug trafficking in 2020, and the Trump administration has claimed that he is the leader of a violent drug smuggling ring known as the Cartel de Los Soles. But analysts, including former US Drug Enforcement Administration officials, say the organisation does not exist in the form that the Trump administration claims, and the US has not offered credible evidence of a threat to US national security that would justify the use of military force under the terms of the UN Charter.
But such concerns are quaint in this new era of rogue superpowers. This is not the first time the US has embarked on military action in defiance of international law. Nor is this Washington’s first attempt at regime change in Latin America, where the US has tried, and often failed, to overthrow its rivals in favour of more friendly governments. In fact, the clearest explanation for the attack on Venezuela and removal of Maduro is spelled out clearly in Trump’s new national security strategy. Released late one night in November, the document asserts the right, even the necessity, for the US to exercise dominance over the “Western Hemisphere” to ensure it is controlled by “governments [who] cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organisations,” and that it remains “free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets”.
This means China, whose influence in Latin America has rapidly increased in recent years, propelled by massive investment in strategic infrastructure and critical mineral extraction. It also applies to Russia, which ratified a new military agreement with Cuba last October and had deployed military advisers to Venezuela in recent months as well as selling missile defences to the Maduro regime, apparently to little avail.
The strategic case for hemispheric dominance dates back to President James Monroe in 1823, who claimed Latin America as part of the US’s sphere of influence and warned that the US would intervene to prevent incursions by foreign powers, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Theodore Roosevelt expanded on that definition in 1904, contributing the “Roosevelt Corollary” and warning that the US would exercise an “international police power” to prevent European interference and protect its interests in the Western Hemisphere. The new national security strategy promised to assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to that doctrine. We are now witnessing what that looks like in practice.
The concept of spheres of influence is entirely familiar to Moscow and Beijing. Vladimir Putin, who claimed his own fantastical premise for invading Ukraine, where he still claims to be waging a “denazification” campaign, wants to control Ukrainian territory and subjugate its government precisely because he believes it forms part of Russia’s historical sphere of influence. Xi Jinping used his New Year’s Eve address to repeat his insistence that China’s “reunification” with Taiwan was “unstoppable” after staging major military exercises around the self-ruling democracy in recent weeks. He views Taiwan as an integral part of China’s historical territory – although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled the island – and the wider region, including the South China Sea, as rightfully belonging to China’s own sphere of influence.
By attacking Venezuela and removing Maduro under such spurious circumstances, Trump has now fatally undermined future US efforts to rally opposition to similar attempts at regime change elsewhere. (Although, of course, Russia, China, and many others have long claimed that Washington is hypocritical and highly selective in its approach to international law.) What is the difference, Putin’s supporters will ask, between Trump’s actions and Russia intervening to remove an unfriendly government within its own sphere of influence, or even to capture Volodymyr Zelensky and put him on trial in Moscow for his supposed crimes? If Xi views Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, as a dangerous separatist, cultivating a pro-independence movement against Beijing, couldn’t he claim, according to Trump’s new doctrine, justification of acting to protect China’s interests in what he views as his own backyard? By casting off any pretence of adhering to international law and the so-called rules-based order, Trump is endorsing a dangerous new era of “might makes right” with military strength as the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty. Trump’s doctrine could have implications far beyond Latin America as well. Denmark – and its Nato allies – should take his claims to Greenland seriously and urgently.
Trump appears to believe that this approach will usher in a new golden age of strategic stability, with the leaders of the world’s great powers carving up the globe amongst them and agreeing to respect each other’s spheres of influence. He envisions the new Venezuela as a beacon of democratic governance and prosperity, allied to the US, that will justify his far-sighted intervention and appease even the critics among his own base. It is more likely that he has just unleashed an almighty struggle for power, both in Venezuela and much further afield. Xi Jinping likes to say that the world is now experiencing “great changes unseen in a century”. On this, at least, he is correct. We are witnessing the birth of a new world order, but neither Trump, Putin nor Xi yet knows precisely what form it will take.
[Further reading: Is Trump the last neoconservative?]
3 January 2026
In his final hours in charge of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro was at the presidential palace in Caracas meeting with China’s special envoy Qiu Xiaoqi. Maduro did not look like a man who understood that his time was running out. He joked with the Chinese delegation about his zodiac sign – a tiger – wished them a happy new year and repeated the usual diplomatic pablum about his commitment to their strategic relationship and shared vision of “building a multipolar world of development and peace”.
That night, around 2 am, the United States launched its assault. Video footage posted on social media showed large explosions in the capital and at nearby military facilities. American military helicopters flew low over Caracas, firing at targets on the ground. Shortly afterwards, Donald Trump announced that the US had captured Maduro, along with his wife Cilia Flores, and flown them out of the country. Qiu was almost certainly the last foreign diplomat to see Maduro in power. It is not clear if the Chinese diplomats were still in Caracas during the US attack.
The timing is almost certainly a coincidence. Trump is said to have given the order to strike Venezuela and capture Maduro days ago, but weather conditions and military planning delayed the operation until now. Yet there is a symbolic resonance to the images of Maduro meeting the Chinese envoy as the last act of his presidency and the prelude to the new world order Trump seems determined to bomb into existence.
On the face of it, Trump’s rationale for attacking Venezuela is nonsensical. Maduro was indicted in the US on charges of corruption and drug trafficking in 2020, and the Trump administration has claimed that he is the leader of a violent drug smuggling ring known as the Cartel de Los Soles. But analysts, including former US Drug Enforcement Administration officials, say the organisation does not exist in the form that the Trump administration claims, and the US has not offered credible evidence of a threat to US national security that would justify the use of military force under the terms of the UN Charter.
But such concerns are quaint in this new era of rogue superpowers. This is not the first time the US has embarked on military action in defiance of international law. Nor is this Washington’s first attempt at regime change in Latin America, where the US has tried, and often failed, to overthrow its rivals in favour of more friendly governments. In fact, the clearest explanation for the attack on Venezuela and removal of Maduro is spelled out clearly in Trump’s new national security strategy. Released late one night in November, the document asserts the right, even the necessity, for the US to exercise dominance over the “Western Hemisphere” to ensure it is controlled by “governments [who] cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organisations,” and that it remains “free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets”.
This means China, whose influence in Latin America has rapidly increased in recent years, propelled by massive investment in strategic infrastructure and critical mineral extraction. It also applies to Russia, which ratified a new military agreement with Cuba last October and had deployed military advisers to Venezuela in recent months as well as selling missile defences to the Maduro regime, apparently to little avail.
The strategic case for hemispheric dominance dates back to President James Monroe in 1823, who claimed Latin America as part of the US’s sphere of influence and warned that the US would intervene to prevent incursions by foreign powers, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Theodore Roosevelt expanded on that definition in 1904, contributing the “Roosevelt Corollary” and warning that the US would exercise an “international police power” to prevent European interference and protect its interests in the Western Hemisphere. The new national security strategy promised to assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to that doctrine. We are now witnessing what that looks like in practice.
The concept of spheres of influence is entirely familiar to Moscow and Beijing. Vladimir Putin, who claimed his own fantastical premise for invading Ukraine, where he still claims to be waging a “denazification” campaign, wants to control Ukrainian territory and subjugate its government precisely because he believes it forms part of Russia’s historical sphere of influence. Xi Jinping used his New Year’s Eve address to repeat his insistence that China’s “reunification” with Taiwan was “unstoppable” after staging major military exercises around the self-ruling democracy in recent weeks. He views Taiwan as an integral part of China’s historical territory – although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled the island – and the wider region, including the South China Sea, as rightfully belonging to China’s own sphere of influence.
By attacking Venezuela and removing Maduro under such spurious circumstances, Trump has now fatally undermined future US efforts to rally opposition to similar attempts at regime change elsewhere. (Although, of course, Russia, China, and many others have long claimed that Washington is hypocritical and highly selective in its approach to international law.) What is the difference, Putin’s supporters will ask, between Trump’s actions and Russia intervening to remove an unfriendly government within its own sphere of influence, or even to capture Volodymyr Zelensky and put him on trial in Moscow for his supposed crimes? If Xi views Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, as a dangerous separatist, cultivating a pro-independence movement against Beijing, couldn’t he claim, according to Trump’s new doctrine, justification of acting to protect China’s interests in what he views as his own backyard? By casting off any pretence of adhering to international law and the so-called rules-based order, Trump is endorsing a dangerous new era of “might makes right” with military strength as the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty. Trump’s doctrine could have implications far beyond Latin America as well. Denmark – and its Nato allies – should take his claims to Greenland seriously and urgently.
Trump appears to believe that this approach will usher in a new golden age of strategic stability, with the leaders of the world’s great powers carving up the globe amongst them and agreeing to respect each other’s spheres of influence. He envisions the new Venezuela as a beacon of democratic governance and prosperity, allied to the US, that will justify his far-sighted intervention and appease even the critics among his own base. It is more likely that he has just unleashed an almighty struggle for power, both in Venezuela and much further afield. Xi Jinping likes to say that the world is now experiencing “great changes unseen in a century”. On this, at least, he is correct. We are witnessing the birth of a new world order, but neither Trump, Putin nor Xi yet knows precisely what form it will take.
[Further reading: Is Trump the last neoconservative?]
No comments:
Post a Comment