Is Might Still Right in Today’s World? The recent U.S. strike on Venezuela and the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro have ignited a global debate that cuts to the heart of international relations. But here’s where it gets controversial: could this bold move inadvertently embolden powers like China to take similar actions, particularly in regions like Taiwan? Let’s dive in.
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides famously observed, ‘The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.’ On January 3, the United States seemed to echo this sentiment when it launched a dramatic operation in Venezuela, capturing Maduro and his wife in a swift raid. The couple was swiftly transported to New York to face charges of drug trafficking and terrorism, sparking widespread criticism from foreign governments over the legality of the action. This incident has reignited a critical question: Is the U.S. reverting to a world order where ‘might makes right’?
But here’s where it gets even more complicated: David Roche of Quantum Strategy warned on CNBC that such actions could undermine the U.S.’s moral high ground. ‘If Donald Trump can invade a country and remove its leader,’ Roche asked, ‘then how can we condemn Putin’s actions in Ukraine or deny China’s claims over Taiwan?’ This provocative question highlights the potential unintended consequences of the U.S.’s recent move.
The U.S. has recently revived the Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s through what it calls the ‘Trump Corollary’ in its National Security Strategy. This doctrine asserts U.S. dominance over the ‘Western Hemisphere,’ a concept known as a sphere of influence—a region where a powerful nation seeks to control political, military, or economic decisions without formally annexing territory. Historically, this idea echoes the Roosevelt Corollary, which justified U.S. interventions in Latin America. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed ‘deep concern’ that international law had been disregarded, labeling the Venezuela incident a ‘dangerous precedent.’
And this is the part most people miss: Roche cautioned that the U.S.’s actions could create a double-edged sword. On one hand, it sets a precedent for aggression; on the other, it grants implicit permission to autocratic regimes to seize territories beyond their current control. This raises a critical question: Are we entering an era where international norms are selectively applied?
The Taiwan Question: A Powder Keg? In Asia, all eyes are on China and its stance toward Taiwan, which Beijing considers a breakaway province. China conducted live-fire drills around Taiwan in December, framing them as a warning against foreign interference. In his New Year’s address, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared Taiwan’s unification with China ‘unstoppable,’ aligning with U.S. intelligence predictions that Beijing might attempt to take the island by force within this decade.
However, Ryan Hass, a former U.S. diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, urges caution against drawing direct parallels. ‘While it’s tempting to compare Venezuela to Taiwan, I advise against it,’ he wrote on X. Hass argues that China’s strategy toward Taiwan has been one of coercion without direct military confrontation, not out of respect for international law, but as a calculated approach. ‘Beijing will focus on safeguarding its interests, condemning U.S. actions, and contrasting its behavior with that of the U.S. rather than altering its Taiwan strategy,’ he explained.
China’s foreign ministry strongly condemned the U.S. strike, calling it a ‘blatant act of hegemony’ and urging Washington to respect other nations’ sovereignty. Marko Papic of BCA Research noted that the Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, seems more accepting of great powers like China and Russia having their own spheres of influence—but only up to a point. ‘Washington isn’t comfortable with these powers expanding their reach,’ Papic added. Notably, the U.S. has not abandoned Taiwan, as evidenced by the $11 billion arms sale announced in December, despite lacking a mutual defense treaty. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to providing Taiwan with defensive weapons.
Rules for Thee, Not for Me? Evan Feigenbaum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that the U.S. will likely enforce its own sphere of influence while denying China the same privilege. ‘The U.S. won’t allow China to dominate Asia,’ he wrote on X. ‘Instead, it will insist on its own dominance in the Western Hemisphere while blocking China’s ambitions in Asia.’ Feigenbaum bluntly added, ‘Let’s not pretend the U.S. is consistent. Hypocrisy in its foreign policy is undeniable.’
Papic suggests that time is on China’s side. ‘Why would China risk uniting the Western world against it by attempting to reunify with Taiwan now?’ he asked. ‘With the U.S. focused on its immediate sphere of influence over the next decade, China can afford to wait.’
What do you think? Does the U.S.’s recent action in Venezuela set a dangerous precedent for global powers? Or is it a necessary assertion of influence? Could this embolden China’s stance on Taiwan, or will Beijing continue its cautious approach? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a debate!
