OSTENSIBLY, Venezuela is at the centre of geopolitical storm that has significantly drawn global attention from North to South—sparking debates over the Trump administration’s recent precision operation in Caracas(Jan 3) arresting Venezuela’s president Nicholas Maduro and his wife.
Apart from Maduro’s criminal charges, President Trump has claimed that the move is aimed at reclaiming at Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, and the US oil companies are poised to invest billions in reviving the country’s oil industry. This US’ recent actions in Venezuela seem to be a part of broader strategy–referred as Trump’s corollary –to reassert US’ power dominance surge in the Western Hemisphere perceived in US’ newly indoctrinated national security strategy (NSS). The US move of interference-cum- regime change is largely condemned and disputed as it entails potential implications of international law vis-à-vis state sovereignty, integrity and regional stability.
As the situation unfolds, analysts around the globe predict a complex and lengthy debt restructuring process, given Venezuela’s estimated $ 150-170 billion in external debt, Currently, the Trump administration’s own 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) suggest that “power surge in the Western Hemisphere” and “regime change” are two prominent approaches that overwhelm the US foreign policy. The US National Security Strategy (NSS) has introduced the logic of resurrecting US’ conceived Monroe Doctrine–aiming to reassert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This move is seen as a significant shift in US foreign policy triggering a geopolitical turmoil. The NSS wants a hemisphere ‘free from hostile foreign incursions or ownership of key assets’; to control ‘critical supply chains’; and to ensure ‘continued access to key strategic locations’. To this end, it will carry out ‘targeted deployments to secure the border and defeat the cartels’.
Richard Haass, a US foreign policy expert argues, ‘There are some superficial similarities between this operation and the one launched by President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to remove Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega from power.’’ According to him, “there was a stronger legal case against Noriega, one involving not just drugs but also the killing of a US serviceman’’. Conversely, Trump’s approach in Venezuela reflects a strategy of orchestrating a controlled political transition by engaging select internal opposition figures, aiming for an orderly power shift. This approach unjustly calls back to historical US legacy of interference in sovereign affairs in Latin American states.
Meanwhile, Trump has also repeatedly raised the prospect of the semi-autonomous Danish territory becoming an annexed part of the US, citing its strategic location for defence purposes and mineral wealth. The Trump administration’s recent move to appoint a special envoy to Greenland prompted anger in Denmark. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. The recently held opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen responded by saying “that’s enough now” and described the notion of US control over the island as a “fantasy”.
The US focus on regional hegemony is viewed by international experts as an imperialist ambition that naturally stimulates rivalry rather than global unity and peace. Critics point out a significant military focus in the new strategy, including potentially unlawful strikes on alleged drug boats, a massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela, and the use of military forces to secure borders and confront cartels. In this context, it is widely argued by the international community and legal experts that any attempt by the US to acquire or annex Greenland against the will of its people and the Kingdom of Denmark would trespass the boundaries of international law, specifically the core principle of national sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force. It is further argued that the US current trends, particularly its emphasis on power surge and regime challenge within the Western Hemisphere and beyond such as Iran glaringly contradicts with President Trump’s stated goal of ending wars and promoting a peace surge, particularly In Gaza and Ukraine. Needless to say, President Trump has asserted broad executive authority, suggesting the US could take unilateral action against any country in the world. Experts suggest that a US operation in Iran akin to the Venezuela intervention would face significant challenges, as Iran’s political and military environment differs markedly from Venezuela’s. A shifting trend in Trump’s foreign policy– leveraging military and diplomatic pressure to challenge existing regimes–has certainly raised concerns about increased military or economic pressure on leftist governments across the Latin American region. Nonetheless, the US’ action in Venezuela has undermined international legitimacy. Further, according to Mary O’Connell, a prominent international law scholar, these strikes and temporary takeover breach the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defence. Given that Venezuela did not pose an imminent threat, the operation fails the criteria for legitimate self-defence. Also, the US blockade raises concerns about aggression and undermines state sovereignty.
In conclusion, US’s assertive foreign policy in the Western hemisphere, particularly Washington’s locked and loaded approach towards Iran, has significant implications for global stability. The seeming threats of military actions against Iran and the Latin American states have raised concerns about the erosion of international law and global norms. Moreover, the division within NATO is palpable due to US’ divisive approach towards Greenland. Voices from both the Global North and South are echoing concerns regarding US’s hegemonic foreign policy. This has created an environment of growing regional instability, emboldening adversaries like Russia and China to challenge US influence. By leveraging protectionist policies, military assertiveness, Washington Leads America towards a path of confrontations and military conflicts. As tensions escalate, the risk of miscalculation and conflict rises, threatening to destabilize the global order
—The writer, based in Pakistan, is an independent IR & International Law analyst and is member of European Consortium of Political Research including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
