The United States is no stranger to hypocrisy. Historically, it has posed as the champion of liberty and equality, while simultaneously discriminating against native Americans, African Americans and Latino Americans. It has championed freedom of speech, while simultaneously silencing political opponents, most infamously during the McCarthy era of the 1950s, and more recently quelling anti-war protests on university campuses. It has promoted human rights, while simultaneously torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. It has championed the rule of law, while simultaneously calling for the release of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, apparently believing that his “pro-democracy” credentials exempt him from Hong Kong’s laws. The list goes on.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that despite paying lip service to international law, the right of all nations to enjoy national security, and the overriding sanctity of national sovereignty, the US has now trampled all over these rights in Venezuela. The brazen military strikes against America’s oil-rich neighbor and the seizure of its president, Nicolas Maduro, were hailed as a triumph by US President Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago news conference, announcing that the US would now be in charge in Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”.
There is no doubt that the military operation was an impressive display by highly trained US forces. However, that was the easy bit. What comes next won’t be so straightforward. The US’ previous experiences of enforcing regime change don’t exactly inspire confidence. Its interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were followed by decades of chaos and bloodshed. There is little reason to be more optimistic in Venezuela, particularly as the nature of the attack is reminiscent of 19th-century gunboat diplomacy and imperialistic exploitation.
The stated justification for seizing Maduro was his alleged role in “narco-terrorism” and enabling the transport of “thousands of tons” of cocaine to the US. However, as with Trump’s plan to turn Gaza into a property development opportunity, and his demands for Ukraine’s minerals as the price for military assistance there, mercantilism and profit were at the heart of the Venezuelan operation. Trump posted on Truth Social: “I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America. This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” These last four words speak volumes about the true motivation for the attack.
No matter how Trump tries to justify his actions in Venezuela, and irrespective of Maduro’s merits or failings as a president, there has clearly been a blatant violation of international law. The US, it seems, has vacated its moral high ground as the defender of a rules-based system of international relations, reverting instead to its 19th-century imperialistic past. Self-interest, American exceptionalism, and a “might is right” approach have all — if you’ll excuse the expression — trumped international law.
No matter how Trump tries to justify his actions in Venezuela, and irrespective of Maduro’s merits or failings as a president, there has clearly been a blatant violation of international law. The US, it seems, has vacated its moral high ground as the defender of a rules-based system of international relations, reverting instead to its 19th-century imperialistic past
Trump’s justification for breaking international law is rooted in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. James Monroe served as America’s fifth president from 1817 to 1825. He pursued a policy of expansionism against the colonial European states on his doorstep. Prior to becoming president, when acting as then-president Thomas Jefferson’s special envoy, Monroe helped negotiate and was a signatory to the Louisiana Purchase, whereby France sold the territory of Louisiana to the US for $15 million in 1803 (worth approximately $430 million today), almost doubling the size of the fledgling country. Then, as president, he acquired Florida from the Spanish Empire in 1819 and established the US’ western border with the region then known as New Spain. Monroe’s main claim to fame, however, was his landmark “Monroe Doctrine” of 1823. This declared US opposition to any European intervention in the recently independent countries of the Americas, making clear that the Western Hemisphere was now off-limits for foreign powers. This doctrine has been at the heart of US policy ever since, most famously being invoked during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
There are obvious parallels with Monroe in Trump’s current focus on expansionism and the strengthening of US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. His Venezuelan putsch was preceded by pronouncements about wanting to annex Canada, take control of the Panama Canal, purchase Greenland from Denmark, and even rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Emboldened by his success in kidnapping Maduro, Trump is now doubling down on his demands to acquire Greenland and, if the rhetoric is to be believed, also has Cuba, Colombia and Mexico in his sights. All this is a throwback to an imperialist era when a more nationalistic, “might is right” approach to foreign affairs was the norm. It seems that once again this approach is back in the ascendancy, replacing the more nuanced, diplomatic approach to international relations, and ignoring international law when it’s not in US interests.
In his typically egotistical style, Trump has now claimed to supersede the Monroe Doctrine, renaming it, rather lamely, as the Donroe Doctrine. He announced: “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot. … Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.” Hearing this, in conjunction with Trump’s recent rebranding of the Department of Defense as the Department of War, alarm bells are ringing across the region. If Trump believes that US military power allows him to do whatever he wishes in “his” hemisphere, his erstwhile friends and neighbors will increasingly see him not as leader of the Western world but as the head of a bullying rogue state.
The global ramifications of this are currently a hot topic in the West. Analysts see Trump’s actions as heralding a dangerous new era dominated not by international law but by powerful empires carving up the world into their own spheres of influence, riding roughshod over the interests of smaller nations. After all, if the US can forcibly seize Venezuela, why can’t other superpowers do the same to their smaller neighbors?
Another expected consequence of Trump’s actions in Venezuela is that China’s broader role in the world will be boosted. For many years, China has been patiently and systematically building strong relationships with South American and other countries, especially those in the Global South. This has been achieved through the development of economic ties through infrastructure development and trade. Underpinning this has been a universal desire for stability, consistency and respect in international relations, rather than the volatility and unilateral bullying that has recently been the hallmark of relations with Washington.
The contrast between Trump’s unpredictability and China’s stable leadership is stark. This has now been brought into sharp focus by the blatant breach of international law in Venezuela. It provides a golden opportunity for Beijing to assume the mantle of responsible world leadership that has been so casually abandoned by the US.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
