US used muscle over mind in Venezuela

The world woke up stunned on Jan 3 to the news of "Operation Absolute Resolve". In brazen defiance of international law and conventional diplomatic conduct, the United States struck the capital of Venezuela, abducted President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and illegally transferred them to New York for what Washington terms as a "trial". Shortly afterward, US President Donald Trump bluntly announced that the US would now "run" Venezuela and tap into the country's oil resources.

Power politics has returned to the Western Hemisphere with a vengeance. This was not an isolated military adventure. The US administration has transformed the state machinery into an instrument of personal and political whim, dismantling the institutional frameworks designed to enable collective action.

The US military action is a rejection of international collective action mechanisms. By circumventing all domestic and international procedures for collective decision-making, the Trump administration adopted the most violent approach. Rules were not seen as sources of legitimacy but as obstacles to unilateral action. The operation effectively asserted that sovereign equality and international law were principles upheld by "losers" while victors now create new ones.

Internationally, this was a flagrant trampling of multilateralism and the principle of sovereignty. Washington completely bypassed the United Nations Security Council and the Organization of American States, proceeding without any international authorization. Its so-called legal basis rested solely on the US Department of Justice's charges of "narco-terrorism" against Maduro. By placing domestic law above international law and using it to justify the cross-border abduction of a head of state, the US has set an extremely dangerous precedent.

The irony is striking. Just two months ago, the US pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison by a US court for drug trafficking and other charges. This double standard starkly demonstrates the arbitrary manner in which the US treats legal principles.

For the Trump administration, the Venezuela operation served multiple purposes. It removed a geopolitical thorn in its side, asserted what might be called "symbolic sovereignty" and sent the message that Washington places itself above international rules. It also tested a new paradigm of unconstrained action, which, once established, would sever institutional continuity and reduce international relations to the execution of political will.

The Trump administration intends to "personalize" US foreign and military policy. National interest is deftly reframed to fit a political slogan — "Make America Great Again" — positioning the administration as a US hero. By portraying Maduro as the mastermind behind the drug inflows and illegal migration into the US, Washington manufactured a tangible external enemy and theatrically "brought him to justice". In trying to stage a heroic return, the operation aimed to craft a dramatic reversal within the narrative of US decline. In the process, international politics was dragged into domestic politics and a sovereign nation was reduced to a tool for advancing election agendas.

The action also blurred the line between commercial and national interests. Trump openly discussed prospects for US companies to take over Venezuelan oil fields. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explicitly stated that the mission aimed to secure "additional wealth and resources" for the US. By candidly linking military action to commercial exploitation, they laid bare the real motive behind the strike.

This is not a return to the "Monroe Doctrine" but rather the emergence of a new paradigm — the "Donroe Doctrine". Its most alarming consequence is not the action itself, but the lowering of psychological and political thresholds for repeating such acts in the future. Once the taboo of cross-border seizure of a foreign head of state is broken, similar actions become conceivable.

This sends a dangerous signal to Latin America. The region is already grappling with social and political tensions, with several countries preparing for elections in 2026. Under the "Donroe Doctrine", domestic affairs may be defined by external powers, triggering crises within states and escalating turmoil in the region.

The strike against Venezuela is the triumph of violent personal will over collective rationality. It may lead to a fleeting political "achievement" for Washington, but ushers in a new era of heightened uncertainty and risk for the world, particularly for Latin America. The "Donroe Doctrine" is undeniably narrowing the distance between other Latin American nations and a fate similar to Venezuela's. Ultimately, the cost will be borne globally — with the US itself unlikely to emerge unscathed.

The author is a research fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.